ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Scotland

Mel Stride: What assessment he has made of the effects on the defence and security of Scotland of being part of the UK.

Andrew Murrison: Scotland is an essential part of the UK’s defence. Our integrated approach protects us all, underpins our considerable international influence and clout, and sustains defence industries which employ around 12,600 people in Scotland. Together, our defence and security effort is truly world-class. Why would anybody want to unpick it?

Mel Stride: My hon. Friend will know that the Scottish Government’s White Paper proposes that Scotland’s territorial waters should be protected by two warships and no submarines, and he will also be aware that Scotland comprises about 50% of the UK’s total territorial waters, currently protected by some 17 warships and five submarines. Does he agree, therefore, that the proposals set out by the Scottish National party in the White Paper represent a significant diminution in the protection of Scotland?

Andrew Murrison: The Scottish Government claim they will spend £2.5 billion on defence, but their Finance Minister John Swinney’s leaked memo on Scotland’s budget says at paragraph 50:
	“I have made clear to the Defence Workstream that a much lower budget must be assumed.”
	I very much doubt, therefore, that the Scottish navy would have even the two complex modern warships to which the Scottish Government aspire. Moreover, their White Paper makes no provision for refuelling and reprovisioning at sea. It implies that they will leave that to the Royal Navy, underlining the point that we are indeed better together.

John Robertson: The Minister may or may not be aware that on the Glasgow coat of arms it says, “Let Glasgow flourish.”
	Does he agree with me that voting no in the Scottish independence referendum will mean that shipbuilding on the Clyde will flourish, and that Glasgow will be all the better for it?

Andrew Murrison: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. Some 12,600 jobs in Scotland are linked to the defence industry. It is impossible to imagine that the jobs to which he refers will be sustained in the event of independence, given the very small number of ships that the Scottish Government would purchase, and article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union, with which I know he is familiar.

Steve Brine: Further to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), according to SNP plans, under independence the Scottish air force would have 12 Typhoon jets, if costed properly. Would that not be a considerable reduction in the number of jets that are currently based in Scotland, and a huge reduction in the total number of jets currently available to protect the air approaches to Scotland and, ultimately, what would be left of the UK?

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish Government tell us that they would have 12 Typhoons, which means four that are operational at any one time. That is no substitute for the Royal Air Force, and neither does it come close to what is provided by the allies, which the Scottish Government like to pretend they will match: Norway has 57 jets and Denmark has 30. The Scottish Government have also made no provision for air-to-air refuelling, without which the scope for covering Scotland’s extensive air space will be dramatically reduced.

Angus Robertson: The Ministry of Defence is responsible for ensuring that Scotland is a maritime nation with no maritime patrol aircraft and no ocean-going vessels. The MOD is also responsible for the closure of two out of three air bases in Scotland and the disproportionate cut to personnel and spending, while at the same time committing to Trident, which the majority of people in Scotland oppose. May I appeal to the Minister and the Secretary of State to come for more day trips to Scotland so that people can contrast the appalling reality of MOD decisions in Scotland with the ludicrous scaremongering of the UK Government?

Andrew Murrison: The hon. Gentleman says that there are no ocean-going vessels, but he has forgotten the submarine service, which, for a Scottish MP, is a huge omission. He talks about maritime patrol aircraft, but he says nothing about how he would analyse the data that maritime patrol aircraft are designed to collect. He talks about two warships, yet he tells us in his White Paper that the only way he can refuel them, and thus extend their scope, is by relying on the Royal Navy.

Menzies Campbell: As someone who was born in Glasgow and at one stage lived close to Yarrows, as it then was, my hon. Friend will understand that I have a particular interest in the future of shipbuilding on the Clyde. Were Scotland to become independent, improbable though that may be, can he conceive of any circumstances in which the
	Government of the rest of the United Kingdom would wish to place orders in what would then effectively be a foreign country?

Andrew Murrison: We have not ordered warships from another country for 100 years, outside the two world wars. Article 346 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union makes the situation clear: it would not be possible to order such vessels in the event that Scotland and the United Kingdom became foreign countries to one another.

Gemma Doyle: There is not a single costed commitment to build or purchase any defence equipment in the SNP’s manifesto—or “White Paper”, as they like to call it—over and above existing UK Government plans. In fact, a letter from the Deputy First Minister indicates that the frigates they refer to are actually four of the 13 that we expect and hope the UK to order later this year. Are not the jobs of those working in the defence sector in Scotland, which are reliant on UK contracts, some of the most at risk if Scotland becomes independent from the rest of the UK?

Andrew Murrison: I am not sure about the figures that the hon. Lady cites, which I think are optimistic. What I would say is that £2.5 billion is 7% of the £33 billion to £34 billion that we currently spend on defence, and Scotland represents 8.4% of the UK population. I think we can all do the figures ourselves and realise that Scotland gets a very, very large chunk of the defence cake; furthermore, it benefits from every single pound of the £34 billion that we spend on defence every year. It is inconceivable that Scotland would be better defended in the event that it became independent.

Afghanistan

Rehman Chishti: What recent assessment he has made of the security situation in Afghanistan and its effect on participation in the Afghan presidential election.

Philip Hammond: The Afghan national security force has now reached 97% of its surge strength target and has the lead responsibility for security across the country. Despite persistent efforts and a number of high-profile attacks, the Taliban have failed to achieve a breakthrough and confidence in the ANSF among the civilian population is high.
	Against this backdrop, nearly 7 million Afghans took part in provincial and presidential elections on 5 April, 36% of whom were women. On election day itself, the ANSF secured polling centres, effectively preventing any high-profile attacks. Last week, I visited Afghanistan and took the opportunity to congratulate the Afghan military commanders in Helmand on this truly remarkable achievement.

Rehman Chishti: A secure Afghanistan needs the support and co-operation of Pakistan. Did the Secretary of State discuss that with Prime Minister Sharif on his recent visit to the United Kingdom, and what assurances did the Prime Minister give, as any future President would need that support?

Philip Hammond: I did discuss security with Prime Minister Sharif during his recent visit to London, and I congratulated him on the effective border security that Pakistan had provided during the recent Afghan presidential elections. He, in turn, reiterated his Government’s commitment to a peaceful and stable Afghanistan, and to working with whoever emerges as President Karzai’s successor to confront the common challenges that both countries face.

Keith Vaz: On Saturday 26 April, five British servicemen were tragically killed in a helicopter crash, including Flight Lieutenant Rakesh Chauhan, whose parents have a business in my constituency and are widely respected there. Will there be an investigation and if so, can we have a timetable, and can we be assured that all support is being offered to the bereaved relatives?

Philip Hammond: First, I am sure that everybody in the House would wish to join the right hon. Gentleman and me in sending our deepest condolences to the relatives of those who died in that tragic accident. It is a poignant reminder, coming so close to the end of the combat campaign, not just of the risks our service people undertake every day in the face of the enemy, but of the intrinsically dangerous nature of what they do, day in, day out.
	There is an ongoing review into the circumstances of the accident. At the moment, there is no evidence of any enemy action being involved in the incident. I cannot give the right hon. Gentleman a timetable for the completion of the review because it will take as long as it takes, but as soon as we have information that we can publish, we will do so.

Julian Brazier: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the security situation. Does he agree that one of the highest priorities after the main withdrawal must be ensuring that we can still provide security for the teams from the Department for International Development that are carrying out essential social and economic work?

Philip Hammond: Once the UK forces have drawn down from the combat role in Helmand, we will still have a small security team, largely composed of civilian contractors, based in Kabul. We will work closely with the Foreign Office and DFID to ensure that their officials and the civilian contractors whom they employ in the ongoing aid effort, are properly protected.

Derek Twigg: On Pakistan, will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he has had recently with the Americans and other allies about how we can provide ongoing support to Pakistan to ensure a secure and safe border and that it is able to deal with insurgents and Taliban on its side of the border?

Philip Hammond: The UK has a close military-to-military relationship with Pakistan. When I met Prime Minister Sharif recently, I was able to reassure him about our intentions to continue in particular the excellent counter-IED work that we are doing with the Pakistan army and the Pakistan civil defence and police authorities. IEDs claim a huge toll in Pakistan, and that work is seen by
	the Pakistanis and ourselves, and by the Americans and the Danes—both of which countries intend, I understand, to contribute to our future programme—as key to Pakistan’s future.

Visits by MPs to Armed Forces Serving Abroad

Joan Walley: What his policy is on hon. Members visiting armed forces serving abroad.

Mark Francois: All visit requests from hon. and right hon. Members are considered on a case-by-case basis and accommodated if possible. If an hon. Member wishes to visit our armed forces serving at home or abroad, they should write to my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary giving the purpose of the proposed visit. However, it has been the long-standing policy of the Ministry of Defence, including under the previous Administration, that visits by individual MPs are normally undertaken at their own expense.

Joan Walley: Given the concern about the armed forces review and the prospect of many officers, soldiers and so on losing their jobs, is it not important that, under the military covenant, we do everything possible to resettle returning armed forces personnel? In such circumstances, would it not be appropriate for the Ministry of Defence to approach the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to see whether it will include MOD destinations among those designated in Europe for one trip a year by MPs?

Mark Francois: May I begin by saying that I have a lot of time for the hon. Lady, having served with her on the Environmental Audit Committee several years ago? I wrote to her in late March about an issue in relation to a visit she had requested, but I am afraid that the position has not changed since then. The funding of individual Members’ travel is ultimately a matter for IPSA. I am willing to talk to IPSA about the matter, but Members will know that I cannot guarantee the outcome.
	I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, however, who has shown consistent support for the Mercian Regiment and its predecessors, and that has been reflected back to Ministers by the regiment itself.

James Gray: I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) about the usefulness of hon. Members visiting our armed forces overseas. Does my right hon. Friend the Minister not agree that there is one very useful mechanism for doing so—set up recently with your assistance, Mr Speaker—in the armed forces parliamentary scheme, which was well founded by Sir Neil Thorne and continues. I hope that all hon. Members will consider joining that excellent organisation.

Mark Francois: I am very happy, without recourse to IPSA, to pay tribute to the armed forces parliamentary scheme and the valuable work that it does in assisting Members of Parliament, particularly those who do not have previous military experience, to understand better the wonderful work that our armed forces do on our
	behalf. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his work to update and upgrade the AFPS to ensure that it remains fit for the 21st century.

Edward Leigh: I will certainly raise the issue on our IPSA liaison committee, but can the Minister think of any other parliamentary fees office anywhere in Europe that would be, frankly, so mean and short-sighted as not to fund Members of Parliament to visit their armed forces abroad? That is so typical of IPSA. I very much hope that the whole House will join the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) in her campaign.

Mark Francois: I understand the point that my hon. Friend is seeking to make. In fairness, neither I nor my ministerial colleagues are responsible for the decisions of IPSA. It sounds as if he is about to launch something of a flanking attack. If he does so, I suspect that some Members of the House may come to his aid.

Ukraine

Mark Harper: What discussions he has had with his counterparts in Baltic countries on recent Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Karl McCartney: What discussions he has had with his counterparts in Baltic countries on recent Russian aggression against Ukraine.

Philip Hammond: The UK is committed, with other NATO allies, to delivering reassurance to the Baltic countries. I visited Estonia and Lithuania on 2 May and met my defence ministerial counterparts to discuss developments in Ukraine. I travelled out to Estonia with elements of 1st Battalion the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, who are participating in Exercise Spring Storm in Estonia. I then visited the UK Typhoon deployment to the NATO Baltic air policing mission in Lithuania. In addition, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for international security strategy will visit Poland and Latvia this week for further such discussions.

Mark Harper: Our Baltic partners in NATO will be reassured by those visits and the demonstrable support we are giving them. Can the Secretary of State say anything about the illegitimate referendum held yesterday ahead of the further referendum in the eastern part of Ukraine next Sunday, given the Russian authorities’ comments this morning that they expect to see it implemented? The concern is that if we do not act firmly they will take irreversible action.

Philip Hammond: The so-called referendum that took place over the weekend was illegal. It did not meet any standards of objectivity, transparency or fairness and it was not properly conducted as a public referendum or election. Indeed, its organisers did not even pretend to meet any of those standards. In short, it was a sham and a farce. We do not recognise any outcome that might follow from it. The important decision-making point will come at the elections on 25 May, and we will watch
	very carefully to see which countries support progress towards those elections and which countries seek to impede it.

Karl McCartney: The latest news in the east of Ukraine marks a continuation of the salami-slicing tactics of Russia. In the course of my right hon. Friend’s discussions, has a red line been identified or can we expect to see Poland with a Russian border at some point? In light of these recent threats, are there any plans to review the national security strategy, given that the doveish Lib Dem view of the world has evaporated since the document’s publication in October 2010?

Philip Hammond: We are sending clear signals through the reassurance mechanisms that we are delivering to our Baltic partners in particular, that NATO members take very seriously their mutual obligations to defend each other. An attack on any NATO state would be considered an attack on all NATO states and nobody, including in the Kremlin, should ever forget that important fact. As for the national security strategy, the proper point for that to be reviewed will be in 2015, along with the 2015 SDSR. I am certain that the changing context will inform that review.

Stephen Doughty: Given the real concerns of our allies in the Baltic states and eastern Europe about Russia’s actions in Ukraine, can the Secretary of State give any further clarity on what engagement with Russia is expected at the Wales NATO summit later this year, and whether any such engagement is appropriate, as things stand?

Philip Hammond: The agenda for the NATO summit is a matter for NATO members, not for the host country, to determine. From the discussions I have had with my NATO ministerial colleagues, I do not think there is any appetite for a NATO-Russia meeting during the course of the summit in Wales.

Gisela Stuart: What specific discussions have been had with Poland, which would play a significant part if there were an article 5 country attack, including about capacity and border security?

Philip Hammond: I have regular discussions with my Polish counterpart and, as I mentioned a few moments ago, my hon. Friend the Minister responsible for international security strategy will travel to Poland on Wednesday for further such discussions.

Gerald Howarth: What discussions has my right hon. Friend had with US Secretary of Defence Hagel to assess the threat posed by Russia to eastern and southern Ukraine? Might those discussions encompass the deployment of a NATO maritime force, as I have advocated for some time, with the specific purpose of deterring the Russians from taking Odessa?

Philip Hammond: As the House would expect, we have regular discussions at ministerial and official level with American counterparts. As the House will know, the US is taking some bilateral actions alongside the actions
	being taken by NATO. The UK is focused at the moment on contributing to the NATO reassurance agenda, and it is not proposed that that will include the sending of warships into the Black sea.

Madeleine Moon: During the various visits made by the secretary of State, were there any discussions on the potential use of RPAS— Remotely Piloted Air Systems—to watch the borders, so that nations can be sure no risk is coming towards them?

Philip Hammond: No, but, as the hon. Lady will know, the E-3 Sentry AWACS––airborne warning and control system—aircraft is deployed at the moment, patrolling in Polish airspace to protect NATO’s eastern border.

Claro Barracks

Julian Smith: What recent discussions he has had on the closure of Claro barracks in Ripon.

Andrew Murrison: A productive meeting was held on 21 February between MOD officials and representatives of North Yorkshire county council, Harrogate district council and Ripon city council to discuss Claro barracks. The MOD will remain engaged at this level.

Julian Smith: On Saturday, the Royal Engineers celebrated their freedom of the city of Ripon with the most incredible display of kit and personnel, and the corps band played brilliantly at the beating of the retreat. If there is any opportunity to keep the Royal Engineers in Ripon for a minute longer, for half a year longer or for decades longer, we will take it. May I urge Ministers to keep thinking of Ripon as they look at the rebasing strategy?

Andrew Murrison: May I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Royal Engineers on their achievements overall and, in particular, on gaining the freedom of the city of Ripon? He knows, because we have discussed it, that I plan to visit Ripon shortly, and I look forward to that very much. I would like to be able to give him some comfort on his question, but the Army basing plan is a highly credible document that will right-size the Army for the future and so I want to manage his expectations.

Type 26 Global Combat Ship

Tobias Ellwood: What progress has been made on the design and development of the Type 26 global combat ship.

Philip Dunne: The Type 26 global combat ship programme is in its assessment phase; its basic capabilities and design were announced in August 2012. My hon. Friend is a keen student of this planned state-of-the-art frigate, so he knows that it is being designed for flexibility in mission and capability for the Royal Navy. The final design, equipment fit and build programme will not be set until the main investment decision has been taken when the design has been fully matured. That decision is now expected towards the end of this year.

Tobias Ellwood: It has been said that a ship can be in only one place at a time, and the same applies to the helicopter on board. Given the increased reliance on rotor systems at sea, which significantly widen the footprint of influence on operations, ranging from humanitarian to kinetic, will the Minister look seriously at increasing the deck space to accommodate not one but two Merlins, or indeed four Wildcat helicopters, to give Britain’s next ship greater flexibility?

Philip Dunne: I can assure my hon. Friend that the Type 26’s flexible mission bay is just that: it will accommodate a broad range of manned and unmanned surface, air and underwater vehicles, and be adapted on a tailored mission basis to the changing needs of its deployment. The use of both the hangar and the large flight deck will enable the platform to operate the Wildcat, Merlin or Chinook helicopter, in addition to the ship’s permanently embarked helicopter.

Reserves Recruitment

Jason McCartney: What steps he is taking to ensure effective incentives are in place to support recruitment to the reserves.

Mark Francois: We outlined in the 2013 White Paper the improved offer we are making to reservists. We have introduced a paid leave entitlement, occupational health checks and improved medical support, and from April next year reservists will become eligible for the new armed forces pension scheme. To further encourage individuals to join the Army Reserve, a number of new and revitalised schemes offering financial incentives to individuals to join were announced in March.

Jason McCartney: I am holding a jobs fair in Holmfirth on Friday 20 June, which the Royal Navy and the RAF have confirmed they will be attending. I hope that, as well as recruiting for regular positions, they will be spreading the word about our reserve forces. Does the Minister agree that we all have a big role to play to make sure that employers understand the benefits of employing reservists?

Mark Francois: I do agree with that. In order to garner employer support, we have worked with businesses to create the corporate covenant, which is a way for businesses to demonstrate their support for the armed forces community, including reservists. I signed the corporate covenant last June, along with representatives from the main business and trade organisations, including the British Chambers of Commerce, the Business Services Association, the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Institute of Directors. More than 100 corporate entities, including Liverpool football club, have now signed the corporate covenant. I must also pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is clearly doing his bit to encourage the reserves, and we all wish him absolute success for the forthcoming jobs fair in his constituency.

Barry Sheerman: May I remind the Minister that reservists and the reserve force have to have local roots? There is no prouder tradition in the Army than the relationship with the county of Yorkshire, but there are severe worries about
	premises closing and, thus, there not being local meeting places and local roots. These things are being diminished and it is worrying to our forces and reservists in Yorkshire.

Mark Francois: As someone who has commanded reservist soldiers, I understand very clearly the importance of local roots and regiments having a basis in their own community. We have said that we will look carefully at the basing announcements that we have made with regard to the reserve. In particular, we will analyse those units that are especially well recruited. If we see units that are recruiting well, we may be prepared to take that into account before final decisions are made.

John Baron: One of the reasons why many of us opposed the Government’s reservist reforms was the prospect of false economies. Given that the financial incentive to ex-regular reservists has recently been doubled because of poor recruitment and that other costs have increased, will the Minister update the House on the financial cost of this initiative, if not now then in writing subsequently?

Mark Francois: It is true that there have been a number of financial incentives designed to encourage ex-regulars to join the reserves, although those incentives generally operate in a way such that those regulars have to commit for a number of years in reserve service and do not necessarily get all of that money up front. It is still highly cost effective to have reserves that can be mobilised for operations. In addition, I was at the Ten Tors Challenge on Saturday on Dartmoor, which was supported by a number of Army Reserve units. I spoke to a number of Army Reserve commanding officers, including Major-General Ranald Munro, the Deputy-Commander Land Forces and the senior reservist in the British Army. They are absolutely confident that we can hit our targets, and so am I.

Sarah Newton: Does my right hon. Friend agree that having the right bases in the right places is absolutely essential, and can he update me on the progress being made to keep the 6th Battalion The Rifles in Truro?

Mark Francois: I am very well aware of the campaign that my hon. Friend has doggedly run in an attempt to maintain a platoon of 6 Rifles in Truro, not least because of the proud heritage of the Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry—the DCLI. She may take close interest in my earlier answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) where I said that those units with a particularly strong recruiting record will find that we take that into account.

Ukraine (UK Defence Policy)

Stephen McCabe: What assessment he has made of the implications for the UK's defence policy of the situation in Ukraine.

William Bain: What discussions he has had with his NATO counterparts on the implications for NATO defence policy of the situation in Ukraine.

Philip Hammond: As I have already said, the situation in Ukraine is very serious. We are responding to it through a series of activities, working together with NATO allies. In terms of UK policy, the emphasis at present is to support NATO's reassurance measures, both in the short and longer term. The events of the past few months have reminded the world that Russia remains a significant military power and cannot be trusted to abide by the rules of the international system. NATO members will need to take the lessons of the Ukraine crisis into account in determining the future posture of the alliance.

Stephen McCabe: I am sure that nobody wants to see sabre rattling, but the accelerated withdrawal of all British troops from Germany was a decision taken during the rather hasty defence and security review of 2010. Given all that has happened since, is there not a case, as Lord Dannatt recently suggested, for a bit of a rethink on this?

Philip Hammond: No. From the point of view of military effectiveness, the presence of large numbers of British troops in Germany, which is now well behind the front line of NATO’s border with Russia, is no longer appropriate. Those troops will return to the UK where they will be able to operate more efficiently and effectively as part of integrated UK forces based here, but appropriate units will of course be ready to deploy should they need to do so.

William Bain: Ten years ago, the peoples of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia made free and democratic choices to be under NATO’s collective security. What assurances can the right hon. Gentleman and the other NATO Defence Ministers give that the territorial integrity of those states will be protected and that acts of aggression from other states will be actively dissuaded?

Philip Hammond: I have reasserted, and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister have reasserted regularly, the commitment of the United Kingdom and of all the NATO allies to the principle of collective self defence under article 5 of the Washington treaty. However, it is not just our words but our actions. Stepping up our engagement in exercises taking place in the Baltic states and deploying four Typhoon aircraft to take part in an additional rotation of Baltic air policing are tangible demonstrations of our commitment to the people of the Baltic states. I can tell the House from my meetings the week before last in Lithuania and Estonia that those tangible demonstrations are very much appreciated not just by the Governments but by the populations of those countries.

Rory Stewart: Will the Secretary of State clarify what steps he is taking to develop non-nuclear options for deterrence to prevent a repeat of what Russia has done in Ukraine? Economic sanctions are clearly insufficient. Will he and our international partners investigate, for example, the use of cyber-attacks as a potential deterrent?

Philip Hammond: As I have previously announced, we are developing our cyber capabilities, and they form a part of our overall armoury. The trick here is to provide clear reassurance and to deter any moves by anybody against NATO states in any mistaken belief that our
	resolve is in any way lacking, while not provoking in a way that would be unhelpful. I hope that we are getting that balance right at the moment, and we shall endeavour to continue to do so.

Julian Lewis: I think we are getting that balance right, but does the Secretary of State agree that the greatest possible threat to peace and security in Europe would be if modern-day Russia’s success in using old-style Soviet tactics against a non-NATO country were to be replicated against a NATO country? It is not just a question of reassuring the NATO countries: it is a question of making it clear to the Kremlin what they must not do.

Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend is right, but let us be clear. What they must not do is perpetrate acts of aggression against independent sovereign states such as Ukraine. Because we have special commitments, through our obligations under the Washington treaty, the red line around NATO is even clearer, and we must emphasise it at every opportunity to avoid any danger of miscalculation in the Kremlin or elsewhere.

Vernon Coaker: Ongoing events in Ukraine show the continuing tensions in the region and the potential for further actions by Russia that could be destabilising for the wider region. Can the Secretary of State confirm what steps NATO has already taken, what the British involvement in those has been, and what additional steps are being considered?

Philip Hammond: Several measures have already been taken, including increasing the scale of exercises in the Baltic states and stepping up the level of Baltic air policing. A discussion is going on about proposals from Supreme Allied Commander Europe—SACEUR—on a menu of further measures of reassurance, and the United Kingdom expects to play a full part in helping to implement them.

Vernon Coaker: I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Russia’s effective annexation of Ukraine’s sovereign territory and its threat to others in the European sphere is the sort of activity that we thought had been consigned to a bygone age. Given that the core of UK defence policy is based on stability in Europe, what impact does the Secretary of State think that the ongoing situation will have on our defence policy and that of NATO, and to what extent is it informing discussions in advance of the forthcoming NATO summit in the UK?

Philip Hammond: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Some might suggest that our eyes had wandered away from the potential challenge from Russia—a militarily very powerful nation, with which we do not always enjoy an alignment of interests. The consequences of the crisis will be to focus NATO member states clearly back on the potential challenge from Russia, among other challenges that NATO has to be prepared to deal with in the future.

Veterans (Homelessness)

Stephen Gilbert: What steps his Department is taking to tackle homelessness among veterans; and if he will make a statement.

Anna Soubry: Some 20,000 service personnel leave the armed forces each year. The majority transit into civilian life without any difficulty, but housing is a problem for some. As a result, we have made £40 million of LIBOR funding available to charities and other organisations so that they can address the problem.

Stephen Gilbert: I welcome the money that the Minister has just outlined, but more than 4,000 British veterans find themselves in housing need each year. Will she join me in welcoming the work of Homes for Heroes, and meet me and representatives of that organisation to see what more can be done to tackle this issue?

Anna Soubry: Indeed. I pay tribute to all our charities and other organisations, which are doing great work to make sure not only that when people leave the forces, they have somewhere to live, but that those veterans who have slipped through the net, some of whom, unfortunately, have ended up homeless, are assisted. I will check my diary and get back to the hon. Gentleman.

Diane Abbott: Is the Minister aware that a proportion of those homeless veterans also have mental health problems? Given the reports that we have seen today about a steep rise in Afghanistan veterans with mental health problems, what are Ministers doing to support veterans in that position?

Anna Soubry: We all take very seriously all those who suffer from mental health problems by virtue of their service. It is worth saying that the incidence of mental health problems among our veterans is the same as in the population at large. We have ploughed around £7 million recently into making sure that services are available. I pay tribute to Combat Stress, for example, for the outstanding work that it has done. It has had £2.7 million, for example, of LIBOR funding and other funds made available to it. The problem is a serious one, but we have to get it into proportion. Mercifully, the overwhelming number of members of our armed forces do not suffer from mental health illnesses, but when they do, we take that very seriously.

Procurement

David Mowat: What progress he has made on improving the efficacy of his Department’s procurement since May 2010.

Philip Dunne: When we came into office, the major projects report for 2009 identified procurement overruns of £1.2 billion and delays of 93 months in the top 15 defence equipment programmes, after 13 years’ of inaction by Labour. By contrast, we have taken decisive action and made considerable progress in improving the efficacy of defence procurement. The latest major projects report from the National Audit Office for 2013 showed that the cost of 10 of our 11 largest equipment programmes had been reduced by almost £50 million in the last year, and some 98% of our key performance measures are set to be achieved.

David Mowat: In December, as the Government abandoned the process to find an external contractor to manage Defence Equipment and Support procurement—the so-called GoCo approach—the Secretary of State said that the Bechtel bid in particular had contained knowledge capital which would be useful going forward. Can the Minister confirm that this has happened and that best practice is being assimilated?

Philip Dunne: On 1 April we established DE&S as the first bespoke Government trading entity with wide ranging freedoms from central Government controls, details of which I look forward to publishing before the House prorogues. We are introducing global best practice to the new DE&S through three work package contracts for managed service providers. We are today issuing the invitation to negotiate for the first work package for project delivery to eight world-class companies which have passed the pre-qualification questionnaire process, and we plan to award contracts for the four domains this autumn.

Peter Luff: I congratulate the Minister unreservedly on winning these freedoms for DE&S. In the absence of a proper contract with a contractor, how can he maintain his opposition to the Treasury’s natural instincts to abhor freedom and seize back power to itself and the centre?

Philip Dunne: I applaud my hon. Friend for the pioneering work he did in helping us take this reform of DE&S through. We are convinced that the work that we are doing in the new bespoke trading entity will bring significant benefits to defence procurement for the long term, but as he knows, we have retained in the Defence Reform Bill, which should shortly receive Royal Assent, the power for a future Government to introduce a GoCo, with suitable parliamentary scrutiny, should this be necessary to transform DE&S further in the years to come.

D-day Commemorations

Henry Smith: What assistance his Department plans to provide to ensure that veterans are able to take part in the commemorations of the 70th anniversary of D-day.

Anna Soubry: The Ministry of Defence has been working very closely for a number of months with several organisations, including the Normandy Veterans Association, the Royal British Legion, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission and the French Government to ensure that our veterans are at the very heart of the D-day commemorations in June. So far we know that 500 of our veterans will be attending, with some 4,000 of their friends, carers and supporters.

Henry Smith: As my hon. Friend will know, many of my constituents and others around the country—elderly veterans who hope to go to northern France for the D-day commemorations—will have difficulty paying for things such as travel insurance and accommodation. Can she update the House on how the lottery can help with some of that financing?

Anna Soubry: My hon. Friend raises a good point. The Big Lottery Fund effectively provides the funding and has worked with the Royal British Legion to make sure that the money available will include, most notably, the high cost of insurance. If there is any difficulty, I am sure that my hon. Friend will come to see me about that, because it is imperative that there are no bars to our great veterans being able to attend these D-day commemorations.

Barbara Keeley: This 70th anniversary might be the last chance to celebrate with veterans what they did in fighting on D-day, given that there are fewer of them and it is harder for them to travel. As it is so vital to recognise the service and sacrifice given on D-day, can more be done to support veterans and their families in attending various events in this country? So many of them will find it hard to travel to Normandy.

Anna Soubry: I am absolutely assured that everything has been done with all the relevant authorities that one would expect to be done to ensure that our veterans can attend. The funding allows family members, carers and supporters, not just the veterans, to attend. That is presumably why 500 veterans have already told us that they are attending, with 4,000 of their carers and friends. There has been some publicity about a form that people have to fill in. They do have to fill in a form, of which I have seen a copy, and it is very sensible. It is not lengthy or complicated, and it will provide us with excellent information so that we can ensure that our veterans take a full part in the commemorations. Unfortunately, as we know, for many of them this may be their last opportunity.

Yvonne Fovargue: Appropriately, plans to commemorate the first world war are far advanced, but it is right and proper that the anniversary of the D-day landings is also commemorated. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, veterans of 1944 are advancing in years and many will find it difficult to travel long distances, even with the support of their carers. Has the Minister had discussions with veterans organisations and other local groups to ensure that there is a national commemoration service, and also local events? What plans are there to publicise these events, so that everyone can attend an event should they wish to do so?

Anna Soubry: Apart from the various events that are planned in France, the most significant one in this country is in Portsmouth on 5 June, from where many of our troops sailed. The hon. Lady makes a good point, but it is right that the spotlight falls over in France on the beaches, with all the services in that place. I have talked to veterans of the D-day landings, so I know what a terrific effort they make to get there, because it means so much to them, and rightly so.

Service Complaints Commissioner (Annual Report)

Duncan Hames: What assessment he has made of the findings of the recent annual report of the Service Complaints Commissioner.

Anna Soubry: I pay tribute to the work of Dr Susan Atkins and all that she has done in her time as the Service Complaints Commissioner. She has identified continuing problems, but overall we have been making excellent progress. There is more that we can do and we have identified that. For example, we know that we need a service complaints ombudsman. We also need to change the system, which will require legislation, and we will do all of that as soon as we possibly can.

Duncan Hames: I thank the Minister for that reply, which shows that she understands the seriousness of these problems. The Service Complaints Commissioner’s report finds that the Army manages to resolve only a quarter of complaints within its target of 24 weeks. How will the move to a service complaints ombudsman prevent, in the words of Dr Atkins,
	“a fundamental breach of duty of care and of the Armed Forces Covenant”?

Anna Soubry: The ombudsman will play a huge part in making sure that all our services, notably the Army, now really do improve their statistics, but there are other measures that we need to introduce by way of legislation. The system needs to change, and I am confident that the sorts of proposals that Dr Atkins has come up with, many of which, if not all of them, I support, as do others, will make the sort of progress that we really now must see.

Kevan Jones: I add my thanks to Susan Atkins, who has done a great job in establishing the service complaints ombudsman. The Minister mentioned the ombudsman, and it was welcomed across the House when the Government announced that they would go down that route. Can the Minister tell me the exact time scale? Will legislative time be found in the next Session to ensure that the ombudsman is in place before the next general election?

Anna Soubry: I think we all know that I cannot say, even if I knew, whether any such legislative moves will be made in the Queen’s Speech.

Vernon Coaker: Give us a clue.

Anna Soubry: No, I will not give the hon. Gentleman a clue, as he urges me to do. These are serious matters. We have said that we recognise how important this is, we need legislation, and we will introduce that at the first available opportunity.

Topical Questions

Marcus Jones: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Philip Hammond: My first priority remains our operations in Afghanistan and the successful completion of the draw-down of our combat role by the end of this year. Beyond that, my priorities are maintaining budgets in balance, rebuilding our reserve forces, reinforcing the armed forces covenant and reforming the defence procurement organisation so that our armed forces can be confident of being properly equipped.

Marcus Jones: Supporting the small but significant group of veterans who leave the armed forces and then struggle in civvy street is of paramount important. The excellent Veterans Contact Point in my constituency provides support for such veterans in the Warwickshire area. What more can the Government do to support such excellent organisations, and will the Secretary of State or one of his team visit it?

Anna Soubry: I think that my hon. Friend was trying to plug a visit, and he has done a good job, because I would be more than happy to go and see that organisation. Often it is those small, local charities that can deliver the best—I certainly have one in my constituency. We have made available millions upon millions of pounds in LIBOR funding for exactly those sorts of organisations to deliver those much-needed services.

Alison Seabeck: Today’s report from Combat Stress flags up the increasing awareness of post-traumatic stress disorder and the increasing willingness of people to seek help earlier, which is a thoroughly good thing. The Combat Stress community outreach team provides those vital services and benefits from the existing funding, as the Minister has highlighted. Will she confirm that it is her intention that that level of funding will continue beyond the end of this financial year?

Anna Soubry: What I can say is that we have given £10 million of Libor funding, effectively in perpetuity, to support our excellent charities. Combat Stress, for example, has received £2.7 million from that, and the outreach team, which the hon. Lady mentioned, received £2 million. May I also make a correction? I think that earlier I said that about £7 million of LIBOR funding had gone into mental health, but it was actually £13 million. We also have many other measures to combat this very concerning condition.

Graham Evans: As a graduate of the armed forces parliamentary scheme, I have seen at first hand the excellent contribution that men and women make to our armed forces. What steps is my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State taking to encourage the recruitment of women into our armed forces?

Philip Hammond: Women play an important role in our armed forces. Just recently we passed a seminal moment in the history of the Royal Navy, with women officers being assigned to duties in the submarine service for the first time. However, we want to make further progress, and to that end, as has been widely reported, I have asked the Chief of the General Staff to bring forward the next review of the question of women in combat roles in the Army and to report back to me by the end of the year on the opportunities such a move would present and the challenges that would have to be addressed.

Ian Austin: The Secretary of State will be aware that Dudley is home to A Squadron The Royal Mercian and Lancastrian Yeomanry, a brilliant reserve unit that is well supported and has deep roots in the local community. Will he join me in congratulating it on the brilliant recruitment day it organised a few weeks ago, which I was privileged to
	be invited to attend? Is that not exactly the sort of initiative we need if the reserve forces are to help Ministers meet their targets?

Philip Dunne: I am familiar with the dispositions of that well-respected regiment, because B Squadron is recruited from its base in Telford, which is adjacent to my constituency. I am delighted to hear the good recruiting result that the hon. Gentleman refers to. I have further good news for Dudley residents: as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces indicated, reserve units can recruit beyond their structured liability in the event that they have success in recruitment, and we intend for the Dudley and Telford squadrons to be able to continue to recruit to up to 125% of their strength.

Mr Speaker: Order. Answers are hopelessly long. Ministers really have to get the message.

Robert Halfon: Iran’s position as the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism was highlighted once again in March when Israel intercepted the Gaza-bound Klos-C ship with a deadly cargo of advanced long-range rockets. What estimate has my hon. Friend made of Iran’s continued support for terrorism and the effect that that has on our security and strategic interests in the middle east?

Andrew Murrison: Iran’s known support for militant groups across the middle east remains cause for grave concern, and it rather undermines President Rouhani’s stated desire to improve Iran’s relations with its neighbours. The UK will continue to work with allies to ensure a suitable response to Iran’s destabilising activities.

Andy Sawford: The Ukrainian army is short of basic equipment such as secure radios, bullet-proof vests, and even sleeping bags and blankets. Has there been any consideration of how we could assist?

Philip Hammond: The UK has excellent relationships with the Ukrainian armed forces, and we have worked with them over a period of years. We have received a request for additional equipment from the Ukrainian armed forces, and we are considering carefully how to respond to that request.

David Rutley: In the light of Sir John Holmes’ review, will the brave aircrew who were involved with bomber aircraft that were not part of Bomber Command but still flew sorties over Germany—such as my constituent, Theo Eaves, who was then based in southern Italy—be recognised with the Bomber Command class?

Anna Soubry: The entire nation should have enormous admiration and respect for the contributions made by our RAF crewmen during the second world war. Such matters are part of Sir John Holmes’s continuing military medals review, which is independent of the Ministry of Defence. He is aware that those who flew on bombing missions with other elements of the RAF outside Bomber Command have made a case for further recognition, and he is considering that as part of his review. I am told that he will report back shortly.

Katy Clark: Defence Munitions Beith in my constituency employs 236 people and maintains and services complex weapons systems. Has the Department been involved in any discussions about what would happen to Defence Munitions Beith in the event of a yes vote in September?

Andrew Murrison: I pay tribute to Defence Munitions Beith, which does a hugely important job and is right at the very centre of defence in the United Kingdom. The straight answer to the hon. Lady’s question is no, because to pre-negotiate would place the Scottish and UK Governments in an invidious position. We do not intend to prioritise one part of the UK above another in advance of the referendum on 18 September.

Steve Brine: Further to the exchange that the Minister and I had in the House on 16 December, can he confirm that he would expect that an MOD objection on the grounds of low- flying aircraft in the area of a proposed onshore wind farm, such as Bullingdon Cross in my constituency, would be taken extremely seriously by any planning authority and by the Planning Inspectorate?

Andrew Murrison: My hon. Friend and I have discussed this matter in the past. He knows that the MOD is working hard to find a solution to mitigate the effects of onshore wind turbines on the things that we do. In the meantime, it is important that the MOD does object to planning applications that may get in the way of its defence deliverables.

John Cryer: Further to Question 14, has the Minister had any discussions with her Commonwealth equivalents about enabling Commonwealth veterans to get to France for the D-day celebrations next month?

Anna Soubry: I personally have not, but I undertake to make full inquiries when I go back to the Ministry to see whether any of my officials have done so, and to write to the hon. Gentleman.

Jack Lopresti: What steps are the Government taking to encourage former reservists to re-enlist? Does my right hon. Friend agree that some of us old veterans may still have something to offer?

Mark Francois: We are particularly keen to get former reservists to re-enlist, not least because of the experience they bring to the role. My hon. Friend practises what he preaches. He served as an Army reservist in Afghanistan, left what was then the Territorial Army, has clearly missed military service, and has recently joined the Royal Auxiliary Air Force. On behalf of the whole House, I would like to wish Officer Cadet Lopresti the best for the future.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Speaker: I think the reaction tells its own story to the hon. Gentleman.

Crispin Blunt: Our miltary are increasingly subject to a legal regime that is increasingly costly, both financially and operationally. Does my right hon. Friend agree with the Defence Committee’s recommendation that the next strategic defence and security review must examine the legal framework within which they operate
	and have less regard to human rights law and more regard to the law of armed conflict?

Philip Hammond: It is essential that when we deploy our armed forces in combat, they are able to operate without having both hands tied behind their back. An increasing spate of costly actions are being brought against Her Majesty’s Government by contingent fee lawyers on behalf of foreign nationals. We are spending £31 million on the Al-Sweady inquiry, the principal allegations of which have collapsed. A number of legal cases are under way and it is not clear that the legal situation will have been clarified by the time of the next strategic defence and security review. The legal processes are very long-winded. The commitment I have made is that if the legal situation is unsatisfactory when those cases come to their final conclusion, we will take further measures, whether by legislation or other means.

Bob Russell: On placing orders for Royal Navy ships, including fitting replacement engines, does the relevant Minister agree that the national security importance of guaranteed ongoing servicing in the UK must be the determining factor, instead of a foreign deal that weakens Britain’s long-term defence interests?

Philip Dunne: As the hon. Gentleman, who is a distinguished member of the Defence Committee, knows, this Government believe in open procurement to get the best value for the taxpayer, not only in procuring equipment initially, but in sustaining and supporting it, including diesel turbine engines for Her Majesty’s royal naval ships.

Richard Graham: The Minister has referred to the important project of the Type 26 frigates. He will know that the first HMS Gloucester was launched in the Commonwealth in the 1650s and that the 10th HMS Gloucester was decommissioned only a couple of years ago. Does he agree that nothing would be more appropriate than for the 11th HMS Gloucester to be a Type 26 frigate?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful case. I have to inform him, however, that the decision of whether the next class of frigate will be named after locations, people or whatever has yet to be taken, but his points have been well made.

Martin Horwood: Do Ministers know whether the Chilcot inquiry into the invasion of Iraq will be published by the time of the general election? If so, which one and what is causing the delay?

Andrew Murrison: Both my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary and the Prime Minister have called for early publication of Sir John Chilcot’s report. I voted against the Iraq war, but served in Iraq in 2003 and I, too, would rather like to see this publication in my lifetime.

Mr Speaker: I have been saving up the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) as a favoured delicacy of the House.

Philip Hollobone: Is there any evidence that the recent developments in Ukraine are impressing upon all of our NATO allies the importance of spending at least 2% of their GDP on defence?

Philip Hammond: I assure my hon. Friend that the question of the levels of defence spending among NATO allies and commitments to future defence spending will be an important theme at the NATO summit in Wales later this year.

Free Schools (Funding)

Tristram Hunt: (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the allocation of funding for the free school programme.

Michael Gove: I am delighted to be able to update the House on progress in providing new school places. Just last week, the Public Accounts Committee congratulated the Department on the clear progress that had been made in delivering new school places through the free school programme, with costs significantly lower than under the last Government’s school building programme.
	Free schools cost about half what schools built under Building Schools for the Future cost. Thanks to the savings we have made, and thanks to the success of our long-term economic plan, we have been able to invest far more than the last Government in creating new school places, especially in areas of need.
	We are investing £5 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament in giving money to local authorities for new school places. That is more than twice what the last Government spent over the equivalent preceding period, despite repeated warnings that the population was increasing. We plan to invest even more in the new Parliament, with £7 billion allocated in the next Parliament for new school places. As a result, we have delivered 212,000 new primary school places between 2012 and 2013, and we are on course to deliver another 357,000. Thanks to the efforts of many great local authorities, we now have fewer pupils in overcrowded primary schools than we had in 2010.
	As well as the expansion of existing local authority provision, we have also, on top of that, created 83,000 places in new free schools. The budget for these schools has been just under 10% of the Department’s total capital budget, but free schools are so far outperforming other schools inspected under our new and more rigorous Ofsted framework. Schools such as Dixons Trinity in Bradford and Canary Wharf free school in Tower Hamlets have been ranked outstanding within months of opening. Free schools are now over-subscribed, with three applications for every place. Indeed, the longer that free schools are in place, the more popular they are, with schools such as the West London free school and the London Academy of Excellence becoming the most over-subscribed schools in their area.
	It is important to remember that while we have met the demand identified by local authorities for new school places, we have also set up seven out of 10 free schools in areas of significant population growth. Indeed, as the National Audit Office has pointed out, £700 million of the £950 million spent on free schools so far opened has actually augmented the money given to local authorities for new school places. Other free schools have been set up to provide quality provision where existing standards are too low, or school improvement has been too slow.
	We should never be complacent about educational standards, but we should today take time to thank good local authorities and all our school leaders and teachers, because no child in this country is without a school place, fewer children are in overcrowded schools and
	Ofsted reports that more children are being taught good and outstanding lessons by more highly qualified teachers than ever before. In short, thanks to the rigour with which we have borne down on costs, the innovation unleashed by the academy and free schools programmes and the success of the Government’s economic strategy, we have been able both to provide all necessary school places and to drive quality up across the board. I commend the free school programme to the House.

Tristram Hunt: This afternoon, young people are sitting their exams, and we wish them the best of luck. They will be showing exactly the kind of self-control and focus so woefully lacking in Education Ministers. Indeed, the Minister for Schools has not even deigned to turn up.
	The question today is: when we face enormous constraints on the public purse, how do we best prioritise spending for new school places? For every parent wondering why their child is taught in a class size of over 30 and for every parent angry that they cannot get their kid into a good local school, we now have the answer: the coalition—both parts—has raided the schools budget to pay for pet political projects in expensive, half-empty and underperforming free schools.
	Will the Secretary of State confirm that he has reallocated £400 million from the targeted basic need programme to fill a black hole in the free school programme? Does he accept National Audit Office data showing that more than two thirds of the places created by the free school programme have been created outside areas of high and severe primary need? Why has the free school programme been so heavily weighted to secondary places during a time of national crisis in primary places? Does he agree with the Treasury that spending on this programme, like his leadership of the Department, is spiralling out of control?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. He asks where responsibility lies for a shortage of school places. The responsibility lies with the previous Government, whose Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note to his successor saying that there was no money left. The responsibility lies with the Labour Government who, when they were in power, cut primary places—cut them—by 200,000 between 2003 and 2010. The responsibility lies with the Labour Government who cut funding for new school places by £150 million, or by 26%, between 2004 and 2009. The responsibility lies with the previous Labour Government, whose primary capital programme told local authorities to cut primary places, not to increase them.
	This coalition Government have increased spending on primary school places and local authority need and, at the same time, we have provided excellent new provision through the free school programme. I note that the hon. Gentleman was silent on Labour’s position on the free school programme. Where is the consistency of Labour’s position on this policy? In May 2010, he said that free schools were a
	“vanity project for yummy mummies”.
	In May 2013, he reversed his position, saying that he wanted to put “rocket boosters” under the programme. In October 2013, he reversed again, saying that free schools were a “dangerous ideological experiment”. Later the same month, he said, “If you are a parent
	interested in setting up a free school, we will be on your side.” He has had more contorted positions on free schools than some Indian sex manuals that I could name.
	The truth is that the hon. Gentleman has betrayed his inconsistency on free schools and the inconsistency in his support for the additional money that we have put in to provide not just local authorities but free school sponsors with the places that our children need.

Graham Stuart: I wonder whether we can clear this matter up, because the Minister for Schools appeared before the Education Committee during the school places inquiry. He said:
	“We have got £12.5 billion or more for basic need that we are going to spend over the 2010 to 2021 period, which is absolutely massive. The Treasury have been very clear with us and we have been clear with them that basic need is the top priority. If we thought jointly that we couldn’t fund the basic need because of the free school programme, we would have to reduce the free school programme. But the free school programme is additional; it does not compromise our basic need objectives.”
	Is the evidence that was given to the Committee correct or is what we heard in anonymous whispers over the weekend correct?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Education Committee. I absolutely confirm that the evidence shared with him was 100% correct.

Barry Sheerman: Surely the point of this urgent question is to ask the Secretary of State to clear up the unholy row not with the Opposition, but between members of the coalition. What is being lost is the right of children to have a decent education. Primary school places must be delivered where they are needed, not where they are not.

Michael Gove: I have enormous respect for the hon. Gentleman and he makes three important points. First, as we have just heard from the Chairman of the Education Committee, the Minister for Schools has confirmed to the Committee that the hon. Gentleman once chaired that spending on free schools augments basic need funding. Secondly, he is absolutely right that we both share a desire to ensure that there are more good school places where they are needed across the country. Free schools are playing a part in that. As I pointed out in my statement and as I know he welcomes, free schools, academies and communities are all contributing to the fact that our teachers are delivering more good and outstanding lessons than ever before, and that no child is without a primary school place.

Malcolm Bruce: The Secretary of State will be as aware as I am—it has been communicated to me over the weekend—that many areas of greatest need are not getting free schools and need places to be provided. What is he going to do to ensure that the areas that have the need but no free schools get the places that they need?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend makes a characteristically good point. I should declare an interest because at one point, he and my mother served on the
	governing body of the same school in Aberdeen. His point about the need to ensure that we have more good free school applications in those parts of the country that need school places is a very good one. Unfortunately, some local authorities—they tend to be Labour—are standing in the way of good new free schools. I am encouraged by the support that I have had from a number of Liberal Democrat colleagues, including the hon. Member for Burnley (Gordon Birtwistle), who have backed free school applications when Labour local authorities have stood in their way.

Clive Efford: The Secretary of State has confirmed that the evidence that was given to the Education Committee by the Minister for Schools was accurate. Would the Minister for Schools, had he bothered to attend today, agree with that statement and confirm that he still holds the same position?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman is asking whether the Minister for Schools agrees with the Minister for Schools. I can confirm that he does. I can also confirm that there is good news for the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Under the last Labour Government, only £33 million was spent on providing new primary school places in his constituency. Under this coalition Government, £40 million is being spent. I am sure that he will welcome that additional investment, which has been secured by this coalition Government.

Anne Main: Clive Glover is leading a group of parents who hope to have a free school on the Harperbury hospital site. A feasibility study is happening now. What worries me, given that this might happen in 2015, is the lack of clarity about the position of the Labour party. It does not seem to have the same commitments. With local elections happening, I think that residents should know what the Labour party thinks about free schools.

Michael Gove: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Although I understand the concern of the hon. Lady and the possible concern of her constituents on this matter, the terms of the question do not engage ministerial responsibility, which is the issue for the House of Commons.

David Lammy: The Secretary of State uses the phrase “quality and rigour” in relation to free schools. Will he look at the recent Ofsted report on Hartsbrook E-ACT free school in my constituency? It found inadequate reading, writing and mathematics, that it was inadequate in all classes, a school body that needed improving, inadequate safeguarding, and that it was inadequately and poorly organised. Is that quality and rigour, and does the Schools Minister agree with that report, and does the Secretary of State as well?

Michael Gove: Obviously, we both agree with that report because it is an Ofsted report and we place an enormous amount of weight and confidence in the chief inspector’s scrutiny of underperforming schools. While there are free schools that underperform, it is only fair to say that there are also local authority maintained schools that are underperforming. It is sad that even as standards increase overall, every day that schools are
	open two local authority schools go into special measures. If we put that in the frame, we can recognise the context in which school improvement work is taking place.
	Although Hartsbrook E-ACT free school was underperforming, in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency the Harris academy, which took over from the failing Downhills school—the right hon. Gentleman, of course, was sceptical about that takeover and forced academisation—is now flourishing. That shows that after initial teething problems, school reform under this Government has worked. I hope that we can work together to ensure that Lord Harris and other high-quality sponsors continue to create the academies and free schools that will help to bring young people in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency additional hope for the future.

Nick Gibb: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am obviously a keen supporter of free schools. The Secretary of State will know that some free schools are keen to adopt approaches commonly found in the most successful independent schools, but some fear Ofsted inspectors brought up in progressive education. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Sir Michael Wilshaw’s statement that there are no Ofsted prescribed forms of teaching is adhered to by the thousands of inspectors engaged on the ground?

Michael Gove: I take my hon. Friend’s point, and I read with interest and appreciation his article in The Daily Telegraph today. Sir Michael Wilshaw is an outstanding chief inspector—the best ever to hold that post—and he inspects without fear or favour. He has also been responsible for ensuring that the quality of inspection during his time has increased. He has led an academy and seen the benefits that academies and free schools can bring to parts of London, so I know that Sir Michael will bear in mind my hon. Friend’s words and ensure that Ofsted continues to do a highly effective job inspecting all schools and holding them to the highest standards.

Fiona Mactaggart: I am surprised by the Secretary of State’s description of this report as “praising” his free school programme, because it raises more questions about that programme than he implies. I represent a town with many free schools. I have welcomed them because, as mums who were visiting Parliament said to me today, what we need is enough school places. The problem with the free school programme in a town as diverse as Slough is that it lacks planning and a community cohesive approach to free school places, to ensure that every community in my town has sufficient educational places. What will the Secretary of State do about that?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and she is right to say that Slough is one of the hot spots in the country where a significant increase in the population has placed pressures on the local authority. We have been able to fund the local authority’s school provision, and augment it with the provision of free school places. It is also striking that many of the applications for free schools in and around Slough have come from different communities, who at last have an ethos and a level of aspiration for the schools that they felt had not existed
	before. If the hon. Lady wants to bring me any specific examples of inconsistencies of provision, I will of course look at them. I am grateful to her for pointing out that she, like many Labour MPs, welcomes free schools in her constituency and is prepared to work with the Department for Education in the interests of young people.

Tim Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Stour Valley community college, a first-wave free school in my constituency, is achieving outstanding academic and other results, while pursuing a very inclusive admissions policy? Not surprisingly it is heavily over-subscribed, and the view of people in Suffolk is that the best possible use of the Department’s money is spending on free schools, and we look forward to the day when private as well as public money can be invested in those schools.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making the point that in Stour Valley we have a school that is providing education of outstanding quality. He has been a consistent champion of providing new provision in the local authority of Suffolk, which has not always had the best schools in the past. The new schools provide not just choice but challenge, and have helped to drive up standards in Suffolk overall. I am grateful that Suffolk local authority has taken an enlightened approach to driving up school standards.

Richard Burden: May I gently remind the Secretary of State that he has not answered the question put to him by my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State? The National Audit Office report suggests that two thirds of the places provided under the free schools programme were diverted away from areas of high and severe primary need. Does the Secretary of State reject those findings or not?

Michael Gove: The first point is that no money was diverted away. It is clear that free school spending augments spending on providing local authority school places. It is clear also that local authorities have sufficient funds. Under the previous Labour Government, the hon. Gentleman’s own local authority of Birmingham received £45 million to provide additional school places. Under this coalition Government, it has received £65 million. Some 87% of new primary school places through the free schools programme are in high or severe areas of need, so they are augmenting—adding to—the provision that those areas need. I should also point out that the hon. Gentleman is fortunate enough to be in a city that enjoys, in the Perry Beeches chain, one of the best performing chains of academies and free schools anywhere in the country. Thanks to the success of head teachers such as Liam Nolan, children in Birmingham are at last enjoying a high quality of comprehensive education of the kind that I know he and I want to see spread across the country.

Richard Harrington: As I am sure you will be aware, Mr Speaker, when I was elected to be the Member of Parliament for Watford at least half of the initial constituency inquiries and complaints were about the shortage of school places in the west Watford area. Since then, the excellent Reach Free school, which I have visited, has opened. Parents are impressed with it
	and so are the students, and there are two more in the pipeline. Given that this is clearly an area of need and that free schools are cheap and easy to operate, what possible complaint can the Opposition have?

Michael Gove: Once again my hon. Friend makes a very fair and reasonable point. He also provides me with the opportunity to remind to the House that in Hertfordshire, under the previous Government, £25 million was allocated for new school places. Under this coalition Government, £122 million has been allocated for new school places, and that is in addition to the free schools programme. This Government’s approach to fiscal discipline and greater efficiency, with school places costing less than half what they cost under the previous Government, means that we are able to meet need and to raise standards in every part of the country.

Steve Reed: The Secretary of State may already be aware that Croydon has the biggest shortage of school places in the country. Before he quotes figures at me, the Tory council’s own papers say that funding
	“only partially meets the costs…of places needed.”
	Is it not perverse to deny places to children in Croydon, while funding new schools in areas with no shortage of places?

Michael Gove: Again, I have to emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that it was the previous Government—I know he was not part of it—who cut spending on new school places and told local authorities to cut surplus places at primary. It is this coalition Government who have increased spending in Croydon on new school places: under the previous Government it was £17 million and under this Government it is £142 million—eight times as much. Before the hon. Gentleman asks for more funding, he should apologise to his constituents for the reckless profligacy and inefficiency of the previous Labour Government.

James Duddridge: In September, for every place in a free school there will be three applicants. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should trust parents and pupils? They clearly like free schools and we should fund them accordingly.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. It is important that we do not just ensure sufficient school places everywhere in the country; we need to ensure that they are high-quality school places. One of the reasons why the free schools programme is succeeding is that it is both adding to the number of quality school places and providing an appropriate challenge and support to existing schools to raise their game.

Ian Mearns: When the Secretary of State came to office, he often quoted Sweden as a great example to follow because of their free schools programme. Now that Sweden is in flight from free schools, what lessons is he learning from that experience?

Michael Gove: One of the things I have learned from Sweden is that their free schools outperform other schools in Sweden; the more free schools there are in the municipality, the stronger the educational performance
	of it. Sadly, Sweden has not benefited as we have from the full panoply of educational reforms needed to drive up standards. Sweden does not have an independent and authoritative inspectorate like our Ofsted under Sir Michael Wilshaw’s leadership; and Sweden does not have the programme of externally set and externally marked assessments such as those we have at the ages of 11 and 16 in order to ensure that all schools are held accountable.

Chris Skidmore: Given that eight out of 10 new free schools have opened in areas where there is a shortage of places or areas of deprivation, does the Secretary of State disagree with the shadow Secretary of State’s view that these are simply a
	“vanity project for yummy mummies”?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point, and he is not alone in backing free schools. Andrew Adonis has pointed out that free schools are actually a Labour invention. He, a genuine reformer, said that
	“the issue for Labour is how we take them forward, not whether we are for or against them.”
	The problem is that when we listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt), we do not know from one day to the next whether Labour is for or against free schools, taking us backwards, not forwards.

Alex Cunningham: The four non-executive directors of the Department for Education board demonstrated to the Education Select Committee their total lack of knowledge about children’s services and about the transfer of vast sums of money from children’s services to other education budget headings—even admitting that they had not even discussed our questions on the matter. In the light of their lack of understanding and failure properly to scrutinise the executive, will he review their appointments and find some people who do have the necessary knowledge and know what is expected of them?

Michael Gove: I notice that the hon. Gentleman, recognising that the previous line of inquiry about free schools and basic need has been exhausted, has changed the subject to children’s services. Let me say that the non-executive directors of the Department for Education include Mr Paul Marshall, the founder of the Lib-Dem think-tank CentreForum; David Mellor, one of Britain’s most successful businessmen; Jim O’Neill, one of the most authoritative economists in this country; and Dame Sue John, an outstanding school leader. If one looks at their record and compares it with the hon. Gentleman’s, I know who I would prefer to have with me in the Department for Education pushing reform forward.

Edward Leigh: May I encourage the Secretary of State in his zeal for free schools? They are, after all, hugely popular with Conservative voters and they are all about Conservative thinking. If some Liberal Minister does not want them, he can always resign.

Michael Gove: I am always grateful for my hon. Friend’s interventions. He, of course, was Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee when it pointed out
	that, under the last Government’s Building Schools for the Future programme, we had a degree of profligacy and waste that was a genuine scandal. My hon. Friend will know that it is not just Conservative voters who find free schools attractive. Like so many free schools opening in Labour areas, the Derby Pride free school, an alternative provision free school backed by Derby County football club—congratulations to them on making it to the play-offs—is outstanding in its provision for disadvantaged children in a Labour area, despite the fact that the Labour local authority did not want it to open. The truth about free schools is that they provide high standards for children who have been failed in the past.

Jeremy Corbyn: May I take the Secretary of State back to the answer he gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)? If a free school is lamentably not performing—failing its children and failing the community—does he agree that it would be much better if that free school were within the orbit of the local authority, which could observe and spot what was going on, give the necessary support and bring the school back into the accountable public sector?

Michael Gove: First, there is an area of consensus between the hon. Gentleman and me about the fact that there are good local authority schools and good local authorities that provide appropriate support and challenge for their schools. I absolutely accept that, but it is important to recognise that there are many underperforming local authority schools, and local authority oversight is very far from a panacea for school failure. As I pointed out earlier, every day that schools are open, two local authority schools and others go into special measures. It is also the case that so far, according to the tough new Ofsted criteria that we have set up, free schools outperform other schools. Furthermore, my Department has I think been faster in dealing with school failure, whether it be in Derby or Crawley, than many local authorities have, and I think it right to bear down on failure wherever it occurs.

Neil Carmichael: I note that basic funding for schools in Gloucestershire will provide an additional 1,680 places over the next two years. Does the Secretary of State agree that the purpose of the additional funding for free schools is to provide choice for parents, and that the need for parents to have that choice is behind the drive for higher standards?

Michael Gove: That is a very good point, and it is the point that was made by Tony Blair, the former Member of Parliament for Sedgefield, when he was Prime Minister. The purpose of new school provision is not simply to provide additional places where they are needed, but to provide a choice for parents when standards are low. It is critically important to recognise that the Government are both funding local authorities to ensure that there is a school place for every child and providing choice and quality in great schools such as the Krishna Avanti free school in Leicester, which I had the honour of opening alongside the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz)—another Labour supporter of the free schools programme.

Bill Esterson: A number of schools in my constituency have told me that the Government have stopped funding vital basic needs services, which has meant a real-terms cut in their budgets. We now know why. Is not the truth that when it comes to free schools, the Secretary of State is diverting much needed resources from teaching and learning for those most in need in order to benefit a few?

Michael Gove: In fact, we are increasing funding for additional school places in Sefton by nearly 50%. We are doing that because, thanks to the reforms that we have made, we are in a position to provide school places more cheaply than the last Government. Of course I am always happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that high-quality provision continues, but the fact remains that there is more funding under this Government than there was under the last.

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank my right hon. Friend for the 1,950 extra school places that he has provided in Thurrock, including places at the Harris primary academy free school, which is due to open. After years of severe need in the Chafford Hundred area in my constituency, a free school is now delivering much needed provision, and is making a real contribution to under-privileged children as well as offering choice.

Michael Gove: Education standards are rising in Chafford, thanks to the academy and free school programme. It was an absolute pleasure for me to visit a studio school in my hon. Friend’s constituency last week, when I had an opportunity to see how our school reforms are helping children in a disadvantaged part of Essex to achieve everything of which they are capable. I pay tribute to the energetic work that my hon. Friend has done in supporting that school and the many others which are raising standards in Thurrock.

Heidi Alexander: Despite the best efforts of Lewisham council, many parents in my constituency are struggling to get their children into local schools because the local authority does not have enough money to fund an adequate expansion of primary places. What justification would the Secretary of State give to those parents, who see him spending money on free schools in parts of the country where demand for places is small, if not non-existent?

Michael Gove: I am grateful for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to pay tribute to Frankie Sulke, the director of children’s services and leading local official in charge of schools in Lewisham, who has been doing a great job in helping to raise standards in the local authority. However, I also think it fair to point out that whereas the last Labour Government spent £25 million on new school places in Lewisham, the present Government are spending £78 million, triple that amount. I hope that the hon. Lady will acknowledge that that has been the result of the careful economic management in which this coalition Government have engaged.

Tony Baldry: Does my right hon. Friend understand the confusion felt by working parents who have striven so hard to establish a free school for five-to-18-year-olds at Heyford Park in my
	constituency when they hear the shadow Secretary of State for Education describe free schools as a
	“vanity project for yummy mummies”?
	Indeed, is not the very phrase “yummy mummy” the sort of patronising terminology that we now expect from so many members of the metropolitan elite that currently occupies the Labour Front Bench?

Michael Gove: My right hon. Friend has made a very good point. Last week I had an opportunity to talk to a group of parents in Ealing, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray). Those parents were dedicated individuals from every social background and ethnicity who wanted to improve their children’s education. They were not “yummy mummies”; they were parents who cared, and we on this side of the House stand up for them.

Roberta Blackman-Woods: The free school in Durham will be lucky if it achieves a total roll of 80 students next year at a cost of £30,000 per pupil. Does the Secretary of State think this is good value for money in an area of surplus places, and where local successful schools like St Leonard’s that are crying out for investment from his Department, have been told by his Schools Minister, strangely absent today, that no money is available?

Michael Gove: The first thing to acknowledge is that the amount of money we are giving to Durham local authority for basic need is increasing under this Government, and the second is that the Durham free school will add to the quality of education that children in Durham enjoy. In the city of Durham there are some outstanding schools, like Durham Johnston school which has succeeded over generations, but across the north-east the level of educational ambition has been too low for too long, and we need new providers to help augment the quality of education, not just in County Durham but elsewhere.

Angie Bray: I thank my right hon. Friend for his visit to Ealing last week when he met parents setting up Ealing Fields free school, and I gather that later this week he will also be visiting another free school, William Perkin, in another part of Ealing. Does he agree that the point about these free schools is that they are providing extra school places in areas where they are much needed, like Ealing? What’s not to like about that?

Michael Gove: I am afraid that the last Government, even though they were warned that population figures were increasing, spent only £18 million on new school places in Ealing. We are spending £72 million on new school places in Ealing, and on top of that this Thursday I will be delighted to open a new free school, the William Perkin free school, which has been founded by Alice Hudson, an outstanding head teacher who does a brilliant job. I look forward to being joined there by the Labour Member of Parliament for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who has been a consistent supporter of this school right from the very beginning: yet another Labour party member and Labour MP who supports our free school programme.

Ian Austin: Parents in Dudley are spending this week in appeals once again because their children have been allocated places in schools they do not want to send them to. Why should pupils be denied places in popular and successful schools because those schools just do not have the space needed to accommodate them? Why will the Secretary of State not promote competition and expand the market by enabling well-run, oversubscribed, financially sound schools to borrow the resources needed to provide those extra facilities and be able to pay them back with the revenue the extra pupils would bring?

Michael Gove: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. I read with interest and appreciation the article he wrote in The Independent on Sunday outlining a similar case, and I have asked officials in the Department to see what we can do to give effect to his suggestion. If he would like to come to the Department and share his thinking with officials, I shall be delighted to see what we can do to take this forward.

Nick de Bois: In my constituency there are three free schools destined, of which two are open, offering 80 places, yet this is in an area in the top 10% of the country for childhood deprivation. I understand the Secretary of State has been accused, with results like this, of being an educational zealot. May I suggest he wears that as a badge of honour for the results he has produced for us in Enfield?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the point he makes. It is of course the case that there has been pressure on school places in Enfield. That is why we have been pleased to increase the amount we spend from £20 million under the last Government to £77 million under this Government. It is also why I am delighted that Patricia Sowter, an outstanding head teacher, has been able to increase the number of school places on top of that by expanding her wonderful chain of free schools. When the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) was shadow education spokesman, he paid tribute to Patricia Sowter for her fantastic work. I hope the current shadow spokesman will associate himself with those words.

Jenny Chapman: I represent a constituency in the north-east that, as the Secretary of State knows, is consistently complimented by Ofsted on the standard of its education, and I would like him to bear that in mind when he writes off my region in the way he just did. I want to ask him about private schools converting to free-school status. Although it is welcome to see these private schools become non-fee paying, it seems that a sizeable debt is being written off when they convert. Will the Secretary of State say how much his Department is spending on settling the debts of private schools converting to free schools?

Michael Gove: I absolutely shall. The first thing to bear in mind is that, as the hon. Lady rightly points out, Darlington is an exceptionally high-performing local authority. One of the reasons for that is that many of its schools have converted to academy status with the support of the local authority, and Darlington shines out as an enlightened Labour local authority. I will share the exact figures with the hon. Lady, but I should
	stress that many of the independent schools that have changed to become free schools are now open to all and an excellent standard of education is available to children on a comprehensive basis. Many of those arguing for independent schools to become free schools are Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) and the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), and I am delighted to have been able to work with two more Labour MPs supporting our free schools programme.

Alun Cairns: How many new places have been created by the free schools policy, and how does the demand compare with that for local authority schools?

Michael Gove: So far, some 83,000 places have been created, and as I pointed out earlier, these schools are overwhelmingly over-subscribed.

Jim Cunningham: In 2010, the Secretary of State cut Coventry’s schools programme. How much of that programme has now been reinstated?

Michael Gove: It is important to bear in mind that the Building Schools for the Future programme was not the most effective way of allocating resources to local authority schools. We have increased provision for additional school places in Coventry, compared with the last Government: they spent £25 million and we are spending £41 million. Coventry is also the area that has benefited fastest from our new Priority School Building programme. Whitmore Park primary school was one of the first to open, just a couple of weeks ago, and there are other schools in Coventry in desperate need of maintenance money which we are now helping at a lower cost and faster than under Building Schools for the Future.

Damian Hinds: Was not the real vanity project the Building Schools for the Future programme that my right hon. Friend has just alluded to, which was hugely costly? Are not this Government now picking up the pieces of the last Government’s unbelievable lack of planning at primary level, and in a way that guarantees quality, diversity and choice to parents?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Again, it is important that the House recall that under the last Government the provision of primary school places was cut, and under this Government it has expanded. At the same time as increasing the quantity of school places, we have raised the quality.

Nia Griffith: The Secretary of State has allocated public funds to subsidise surplus places in under-subscribed free schools, while there is a shortage of school places in other areas. Will he now consider putting on hold plans for prospective free schools to open in September that still do not have applications for half their first cohort of places, and putting the money saved towards providing places where they are genuinely needed?

Michael Gove: It is important to acknowledge that money is going to providing places where they are genuinely needed. One thing I did not have an opportunity to point out earlier—[Interruption.] Let me give the
	hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) these figures, which have been audited nationally. In Stoke-on-Trent under the last Government, £2.4 million went to new primary school places; under this Government, the figure is £12.4 million—three times as much. The hon. Gentleman is benefiting, not for the first time, from a Conservative Government being in place. I am confident that in due course we will find that all the free schools opening this year will be popular, and if for any reason they fail or falter, we will be quick to close them down or put them under new management.

Stephen McPartland: My wife is a teacher in a primary school in Stevenage that Hertfordshire county council is expanding, along with many others. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the real root cause of the problem is the previous Government’s decision to cut 200,000 primary school places and remove surplus places?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the last Government cannot say they were not warned. The Office for National Statistics repeatedly pointed out that the population was increasing; we were living through an unprecedented baby boom, and many new Britons were arriving on our shores. All these trends should have been anticipated by the last Government, but they were not. It fell to us to increase spending on primary school places; unfortunately, the last Government did not take the action that was required in time.

Angela Smith: Chapeltown academy, the proposed 16-to-19 free school in my constituency is being developed in the context of cuts in funding for FE, growing pressure on primary school places in Sheffield and Barnsley, and no demonstrable need for these proposed new sixth-form places—a point underlined by the fact that just 12 Sheffield youngsters have taken an offer from the academy as a first preference. The Secretary of State can surely see the need to redirect the resources being wasted on Chapeltown Academy to better use elsewhere.

Michael Gove: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that point. My understanding is that significantly more have applied—a significantly higher number—but it is the case that this new provision will help raise standards in Sheffield and that we are providing this new school alongside having increased the amount of money available for primary school places in Sheffield. Under the previous Government, £22 million was provided; over the equivalent funding period, we are providing £36 million.

Justin Tomlinson: Nothing matches the anger of parents denied a place in a good local school. In stark contrast to when Labour cut 200,000 places in the midst of a baby boom, the proposed New College free school in my constituency is the best opportunity to meet the shortfall in secondary school places. I hope that the Minister will fully support the bid, in stark contrast to Labour’s opposition.

Michael Gove: I am sorry to hear that Labour is opposing that excellent additional provision. Swindon, in particular under Conservative leadership, has seen schools improve consistently over recent years. I hope
	that we see great additional state school provision in Swindon. I will do everything that I can to support the parents who are behind that bid.

Andy Sawford: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he reallocated £400 million from the targeted basic need programme to fill a black hole in the free schools programme? It is a simple question. He did not answer my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt). Yes or no?

Michael Gove: We are actually spending more on basic need and on free schools as a result of the wise decisions that we have taken. It was interesting, in the hon. Gentleman’s question, that he did not take the opportunity—but I shall—to praise Corby technical school, which is the wonderful new free school that has been opened in his constituency. It is providing an outstanding standard of education for young people in his area. I hope he will take the opportunity the next time that he speaks on education to praise those who have provided such an outstanding quality of education.

Robin Walker: A moment ago, the Secretary of State mentioned a football club that is supporting alternative provision in a free school. Will he join me in congratulating the Worcester Warriors in its support of the Aspire academy, a free school soon to be opening in Worcester? I thank him for the fact that, along with that free school in one of the areas of highest need in my constituency, the Government are also investing in 500 more primary places in Worcestershire.

Michael Gove: I am delighted to hear that. We are very grateful for the role that football clubs and other charities play in supporting free schools. One of the best free school applications that I have seen came from Everton football club and was enthusiastically supported by the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), another predecessor of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and another Labour supporter of free schools—

Kevin Brennan: Oh yeah?

Michael Gove: The right hon. Gentleman wrote to support that bid. I am glad that there is growing consensus behind free schools. I am disappointed that the dwindling band on the Opposition Front Bench hold out against it.

Bridget Phillipson: The Secretary of State referred to the Priority School Building programme and the speed with which schools are being built under it, but is it not the case that only 10% of schools in the programme will even have been started on by 2015?

Michael Gove: It is the case that the Priority School Building programme has had to have a number of individual projects rescoped, and some have encountered delays that we would not have wanted to see, but the programme has delivered more school places, at a lower cost and faster than the previous Building Schools for the Future programme.

Guy Opperman: In my part of Northumberland, we have neither the benefits nor the perceived burden of a free school. We have focused on more primary places; the rebuild, authorised by the Secretary of State, of Prudhoe community high school; the creation of the Haltwhistle academy, the first in my constituency; and the changes to the fairer funding formula, which will for the first time produce enhanced funding for Northumberland. I welcome the changes, I welcome his direction of travel and, in particular, I welcome the changes to the fairer funding formula.

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Part of the progressive changes that have been introduced by my Department and which have been championed and designed by the Minister for Schools has been an increase in funding for the parts of the country that have suffered in the past. In particular, the delivery of the pupil premium ensures that disadvantaged children, wherever they are, enjoy not only a high quality of education but additional investment in a better future.

Nicholas Dakin: Why has £62 million been spent on nine 16-to-18 free schools, with little evidence of need and at a time when sixth-form colleges are experiencing very deep funding cuts?

Michael Gove: I take funding for 16 to 18-year-olds seriously. That is why I am delighted that the London Academy of Excellence in east London, which was visited and indeed praised by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central, has helped to ensure that children in a part of east London who did not always have access to a high-quality academic education now enjoy it. Of course, my door is always open to the Association of Colleges and others to ensure that the great work that sixth-form colleges and that sixth-formers throughout the country do remains supported properly.

Therese Coffey: My right hon. Friend will be aware of Churchill free school in Haverhill, which makes provision for children with autism. I hope that the application in Ipswich will be similarly successful. He will be aware of the school in Saxmundham that was requested by parents and opened by the Seckford Foundation, because unfortunately the alternative was a school that was rated “inadequate”. Is it not right that free schools give parents and children a real educational opportunity at a time they desperately need it?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a good point. Free schools are providing parents with choice, not just in mainstream education but in ensuring high-quality provision for children with special educational needs. I am delighted that the Seckford Foundation is one of a number of charitable organisations seeking to augment the public money that comes to the taxpayer to improve our educational system.

Rob Wilson: The previous Labour Government’s overspending and my local education authority’s failure to plan ahead meant that Reading was left in 2010 with huge pressure on places. I thank the Secretary of State for the millions of pounds poured into extending existing primary schools, as well as three new free schools and a new Reading university technical
	college. The new schools are providing new opportunities and raising standards across the area. Should we not all welcome choice and diversity as part of driving up standards and delivering long-term success in the education system?

Michael Gove: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We have increased the amount available for new primary school places in Reading from £8.3 million under the previous Government to £34.7 million under this Government. He also gives me the opportunity to say that in addition to the new school provision offered by free schools, university technical colleges are providing parents with high-quality options and choice at the age of 14. Let me take this opportunity to thank Lord Adonis and Lord Baker for the leadership they have shown at the head of the university technical college programme.

Philip Hollobone: May I thank the Secretary of State for his role in securing the provision of an extra 2,660 primary school places in Northamptonshire since 2010 and congratulate him on securing the funding massively to increase this programme so that an additional 4,490 primary school places will be provided by 2016?

Michael Gove: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He, like me, is a hawk on public expenditure, but by making savings elsewhere we can invest more in primary school places where they are needed. He is right that investment in primary school places in Northamptonshire has increased: it was £29 million under the previous Government and in the equivalent period under this Government it has gone up to £55 million.

Point of Order

Stephen Pound: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. May I ask your indulgence and advice on how I might correct what I am sure it was an unintentional calumny by the Secretary of State when he referred in passing to my support for a free school in my constituency? I wish to assure the House that my support for William Perkin school is predicated entirely on my respect for the teachers, staff and pupils and not on a loathsome system that diverts resources from those in need.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman who has, I think, found his own salvation, as he knows and as the House will detect. He expresses himself with the force and alacrity with which he has been associated in the Chamber these past 17 years.

Business without Debate

Care Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Care Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 16 December 2013 (Care Bill [Lords] (Programme)) and 10 March 2014 (Care Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)):
	Consideration of Lords Message
	(1) Proceedings on a Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement at today’s sitting.
	Subsequent stages
	(2) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
	(3) The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(John Penrose.)
	Question put and agreed to.

Care Bill [Lords]

Consideration of Lords message

Mr Speaker: There has been a late change of heart, not on my part but on the part of those on the Treasury Bench. I have selected amendments (a) to (c) to Lords amendments 40B and 40C. I understand that Ministers have grouped for one debate all five sets of propositions from the Lords, meaning that there will be one single debate. It will be held in formal terms on the motion to be moved now by the Minister in relation to Lords amendments 11B and 11C in lieu of the words left out of the Bill by this House’s amendment 11.

Clause 48
	 — 
	Provision of “care and support services”

Norman Lamb: I beg to move,
	That this House does not insist on its amendment 11 and agrees with Lords amendments 11B and 11C in lieu.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
	Lords amendment 32A to Commons amendment 32, and consequential Lords amendments 32C and 32D.
	Commons amendment 40, Government motion not to insist, Lords amendment 40B in lieu, amendments (a) and (b) thereto, Lords amendment 40C in lieu, amendment (c) thereto and Lords amendments 40D and 40E in lieu.
	Commons amendment 42, Government motion not to insist and Lords amendments 42B and 42C in lieu.
	Commons amendment 46, Government motion not to insist and Lords amendments 46B to 46E in lieu.

Norman Lamb: I would like to start by placing on the record my sincere thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members for a real spirit of collaboration that has existed throughout the Bill’s consideration and for the constructive criticism that has characterised both our formal and informal discussions leading up to this moment. Many of the suggestions have been taken up, and I believe we now have a better Bill as a result. This scrutiny has influenced not only the Government’s amendments, but the surrounding policy, and our proposals for forthcoming secondary legislation and guidance. Indeed, the approach we have taken so far of working collaboratively with those in the sector will continue throughout the consideration of the secondary legislation and guidance.
	Hon. Members may recall that some weeks ago on Report I undertook to consider the matter of the application of the Human Rights Act to social care further. Government amendments 11B and 11C represent the fulfilment of that promise. They respond to the excellent report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and follow discussions that Earl Howe, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for quality, and I have had with a number of Members of the House of Lords and with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow). I am grateful to the Joint Committee and to those parliamentarians with whom we have had such constructive discussions.
	As has been said in this House and in the Lords throughout the passage of the Bill, this Government need to send out a strong message to the sector not to allow abuse, neglect or harm. Our priority must be preventing harm, abuse and neglect from happening in the first place. We very much believe that there are already, as a result of the steps this Government have taken, strong deterrents to abuse and neglect, and many of the Care Quality Commission’s fundamental standards will include human rights dimensions. The standards will apply to all registered providers of health and social care, and failure to comply with these standards which relate to harm could be a criminal offence. We are, however, aware of the strength of feeling on this matter, which is why Earl Howe offered a Government amendment in the Lords.
	The amendment does not extend the scope of the Human Rights Act into the purely private sphere, where there is no state involvement, which clause 48, removed in the Public Bill Committee, did. It would, though, make it explicit that care providers who are regulated by the Care Quality Commission in England, or by equivalent bodies in the rest of the United Kingdom, when providing care and support arranged or funded in whole or in part by local authorities, are exercising a public function for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. In welcoming the amendment, Lords Members agreed that it meets the objectives of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment has also been welcomed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The amendment makes it clear that providers of publicly arranged or funded care and support—both residential and non-residential—provided on behalf of a local authority to an individual are bound by the Human Rights Act.
	As hon. Members may recall, I was unable to accept the JCHR amendment, in the way it was drafted, for technical reasons. The Human Rights Act is an entrenched enactment, which the devolved legislatures cannot modify, but its application should be the same across the UK. The Government’s amendment therefore applies the legislative clarification to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. It is important to bear in mind that the scope of application of the Human Rights Act matters to lots of other people beyond the care sector. The Government believe it is not appropriate to pick and choose which people or bodies are expressly made subject to the Human Rights Act; it should always be based on clear principles. That is why I want to make it clear that this amendment would not set a precedent for any future occasions where there are perceived to be gaps in the coverage of the Human Rights Act. The House of Lords warmly welcomed this amendment, and I hope that this House will do the same.
	The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has recently reported on the amendments made by this House to the Care Bill. It made two recommendations, which, I am pleased to say, the Government have accepted. Amendment 46B addresses the first recommendation and ensures that the first set of regulations establishing the care and support appeals process—something that in itself has been very much welcomed—will be subject to the affirmative procedure. The remaining amendments are minor and technical and address a concern from the Committee about confusing drafting.
	On Lords amendments 40A to 40E, and 42A to 42C, I am sure everyone will agree that there is an urgent imperative for the trust special administrator’s regime to be clear, workable and effective, and I commend the scrutiny undertaken by this House and the other place of clause 118. It has led to sensible, further improvements in the way in which the regime will operate. In particular I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam for raising on Report the issue of commissioner parity.
	The Government agree that all affected commissioners and the essential NHS services they commission must be placed on an equal footing during the TSA regime. For that reason we tabled these amendments in the other place, which would ensure that recommendations by an administrator at a foundation trust that affect other trusts do not harm their essential NHS services. We are pleased that the amendments were accepted in the other place, and that they were so warmly welcomed outside Parliament.
	The legislation already requires the trust special administrator to obtain from each commissioner of a foundation trust in administration their agreement that the administrator’s recommendations achieve his or her legal objective to secure the continuation of essential services of the failing trust. Clause 118 would extend that to each affected commissioner of other trusts.
	The Lords amendments will require any commissioner of affected services provided by another trust to agree that the recommendations will achieve that legal objective and do so, critically, without harming essential services at the other affected trust. Therefore, essential NHS services will be equally protected under the regime irrespective of where they are provided.
	As now, in default of all local commissioners agreeing, the TSA must seek agreement from NHS England. Under our amendments, its decision would, additionally, be based on whether the recommendations harmed essential NHS services at other affected trusts, taking into account the views of all the commissioners.

Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is setting out the important changes that have been made in the Lords on the trust special administration process. He might consider giving further emphasis to the point that Earl Howe made in relation to all the steps that would be taken prior to the consideration of a trust special administration process being put in place, not least the intervention powers of Monitor and others.

Norman Lamb: Given that time is tight, I simply confirm that I strongly support what Earl Howe said in the other place, and reinforce the points that my right hon. Friend has made.
	For NHS trusts, clause 118 already requires the Secretary of State to produce guidance on seeking commissioner support and involving NHS England, and we will ensure that the key principles of parity between affected commissioners and the essential services they commission are captured in the guidance. I urge the House to support the Lords’ amendments.

Jamie Reed: Our amendments to Lords amendments 40B and 40C are designed to protect patients, improve transparency and decision making, and ensure that health service reconfigurations
	do not result in a restriction of access to services for patients. I give notice that I wish to press amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment 40B to a vote.
	This is probably the final piece of health legislation that will come before this Parliament. To date, this Bill marks four years of chaos and confusion in the NHS—chaos inflicted on the service by the Prime Minister and his two Secretaries of State for Health. What a four years it has been! The Prime Minister promised no top-down reorganisation of the national health service, then introduced the biggest and most chaotic, expensive and wasteful reorganisation that the service has seen in its entire history. He promised a bare-knuckle fight against hospital closures—a fight that not only never appeared, but was knowingly untrue from the outset. We have seen Ministers admit that the 111 service was not ready to be rolled out, but who went ahead, scrapped NHS Direct and rolled it out anyway. We have seen one of the most important schemes for the future of the country and the NHS in the shape of the care.data scheme being bungled, botched and brought to the brink of collapse by ministerial incompetence. We have seen military hospital field tents outside accident and emergency units and police cars being used as makeshift ambulances, queuing outside hospitals for hours on end.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend mentions the supposed attack on bureaucracy by the Conservatives. Is he aware that since their reorganisation there is actually more bureaucracy? Many of the people who have been sacked, and who received redundancy payments, are now working in the commissioning support organisations.

Jamie Reed: My hon. Friend is entirely right, and the Lords amendments will only make that situation worse.
	Now, as this zombie Parliament limps towards the finishing line, we are asked to consider a Frankenstein Bill—a badly stitched together Bill—which began with good intentions, but which, for the most part, will not end well. The Care Bill should have remained just that. On the face of it, part 1, building on the work of the last Labour Government, makes some modest improvements which we welcome, but let us be under no illusions. For all the Government’s bold claims, this Bill is a modest Bill. We support the rights for carers and many of the provisions and principles contained in part 1. Even though we believe that these could have gone much further towards the creation of a properly integrated model of whole person care, the real issue is that the Government have hijacked the Bill to push through a back-door reconfiguration tool that undermines the principle of local commissioning by centralising hospital closure and service removal decisions. It exposes as a sham the Government’s rhetoric about local clinical commissioning over the last four years.
	Before I address the trust special administrator clause in more detail, let me touch on Lords amendment 11B, relating to human rights. Hon. Members may remember this issue from our debates on Report. The amendment will ensure that all users of publicly funded or arranged care have direct protection under the Human Rights Act 1998. Under the law as it stands, the fundamental protection and access to individual redress offered by the Act are not applied equally in all care settings.
	This measure has a long history. In the other place, Lord Low tabled and passed a new clause which sought to close the loophole. But the Government removed it in Committee in this House, and then voted down an Opposition amendment on Report that would have restored it. The Minister did, however, say that he would go away and look at the issue again. The result is the amendment that we have before us today. For our part, we welcome the Government’s U-turn on this. It is good that Ministers have seen the light, having voted against this kind of protection at every previous stage of the Bill’s passage.
	The amendment is clear that any care that is paid for out of public money
	“directly or indirectly, in whole or in part”,
	or which is arranged by a public authority, will now be covered by the Human Rights Act. However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. First, he knows that personal budgets are absolutely critical in giving people greater choice and control over their lives, and enabling people to make their own decisions about how their care is delivered. It is important that personal budgets are covered by the amendment. Will the Minister confirm that that is the case, and that social care provided by a regulated provider and paid for by direct payments is included?
	Secondly, it would be good if the Minister could clarify for the House whether so-called non-personal care is covered by the amendment. The definition of care used in the Lords amendment is that used in the Health and Social Care Act 2008. This is quite a narrow definition, and it is possible that it could exclude some very important types of care for people with learning disabilities or mental health problems, such as assisting them to participate in activities or to get to appointments. The Opposition amendment tabled on Report, which was drafted by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, would have covered this non-personal care, but as the Government’s amendment contains a narrower definition, we are concerned that they may be excluding quite broad categories of publicly provided social care services that may not be defined as personal care. We would be grateful if the Minister could allay our fears on that point, and confirm that those extremely important types of care for some very vulnerable people will be covered by this amendment. I look forward to his reply.

Kate Green: This is an important point for disabled adults in residential care, for example, who may receive care from one private provider, but access other services and facilities through another provider. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that all activities, including going out to participate in social and learning activities, need to be covered by the Lords amendment?

Jamie Reed: Indeed. My hon. Friend knows about these issues in detail. That is why we have asked the questions that we asked and tabled our amendment on Report.
	With reference to parts 2 and 3 of the Bill, the insertion of the hospital closure clause—the Lewisham clause, clause 119, formerly clause 118, call it what you like—is extremely regrettable. It is because of this that the comparison with Frankenstein’s monster has been
	made, and because of this that we have tabled further amendments today. This House, the people of this country and every hospital league of friends, local hospital action group or other such groups working for the benefit of health services local to their area—and I include in that the magnificent campaigners in Millom and around the West Cumberland hospital in Whitehaven —will never forget the genesis of the major policy change that this clause represents, namely Ministers’ attempts to close good services at a well performing hospital against the wishes of the locally affected public, patients and local clinical commissioners.
	On attaining office, the Government made a series of grand promises about future changes to hospital services. The coalition agreement stated:
	“We will stop the centrally dictated closure of A&E and maternity wards, so that people have better access to local services.”
	GPs were meant to be placed in decision-making roles and given the power to shape local services. As with so much that this Government do, the rhetoric could not be further from the reality, and far from stopping centrally dictated closures, they are now legislating to make it easier to close local hospitals and remove hospital services.
	Clearly, a failure regime is essential and when things go wrong, they must be put right, but to attempt to short-circuit the existing reconfiguration framework, and to actively seek to disfranchise patients and the public, is not the way to improve services. Riding roughshod over local commissioning in order to reconfigure an area’s health services is not the way to build support for change. Deliberately ignoring the voices of local patients is a recipe for more expense, uncertainty and delay.
	Take the example of Lewisham. Much has been said in this place about the process, the legal judgments and the amazing work undertaken by local campaigners there, so I shall not go into too much detail. Suffice to say that the Government’s attempts to use the law for a purpose for which it was never designed were described as “strained and unnatural” by Lord Justice Sullivan when dismissing the Government’s appeal against their original defeat. I would be grateful if the Government could explain why they believe the most effective way to deal with a failing trust is to alienate local commissioners, the local community and local health professionals. Rather than bringing stakeholders to the table to form a solution with regard to Lewisham, the Secretary of State dragged them through the courts and lost, twice.
	Having been beaten by the law, the Secretary of State has decided to change it. The simple truth of the Government’s hospital closure clause is that a successful local hospital, the type that the Secretary of State enjoys getting his photograph taken in, can be closed without due process, simply because the one down the road is in trouble. It is as logical as removing a patient’s leg to cure a headache. Despite their valiant defence of the clause as it stood on Second Reading, the Government have been forced to make what they call major concessions, which are in reality very minor concessions.
	Lords amendments 40B to 40E seek to ensure that “essential services” are not harmed. We are told this would mean that if a local commissioner believed that the trust special administrator’s recommendations would harm essential services, they would not be implemented—unless, of course, NHS England overruled
	the local commissioner. Our amendments to Lords amendments 40B and 40C would ensure that any recommendations would not be able to go ahead if they in any way restricted access to services, and that all correspondence between commissioners and the trust special administrator would be made public. Making it harder to use services is the very antithesis of the principles underpinning the NHS, which the Government claim to support—but only when it suits them.
	We should judge this Government not by their words, but by their actions. They promised no top-down reorganisation. They delivered the biggest, most wasteful, most expensive and chaotic reorganisation in the history of the service. They promised a bare knuckle fight to protect local services. They delivered a back-door reconfiguration tool that could facilitate the largest ever hospital closure programme. They promised that local decisions would be made by local commissioners. They delivered a power for the Secretary of State and NHS England to overrule local commissioner vetoes. All this was done against the advice of medical professionals, against the wishes of the public and against every pre-election promise, and therefore without a shred of legitimacy.
	The TSA process was introduced in 2009 and was intended, as the High Court ruled, to be used to make quick changes to management structures in order to address financial failures, not to make widespread service reconfigurations possible without public input.

Paul Burstow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point.

Jamie Reed: I will make some progress.
	The only way to build sustainable services is to have widespread ownership of changes and a robust process of community engagement. The Government’s disfigurement of the TSA process will mean that they have to give no regard to patients’ wishes, and in practice it will mean that they can disregard the views of local commissioners. If the Secretary of State wants to close a hospital, it will be done. It is as simple as that.
	In 2003 Labour created the independent reconfiguration panel, a non-departmental body to advise on service change. The IRP’s terms of reference when reconfigurations are proposed state:
	“The panel will consider whether the proposals will provide safe, sustainable and accessible services for the local population, taking account of:
	1) Clinical and service quality
	2) The current or likely impact of patients’ choices and the rigour of public involvement in consultation processes, and
	3) The views and future referral needs of local GPs who commission services, the wider configuration of the NHS and other services locally, including likely future plans.”
	Why does the Minister think reconfigurations of whole health economies should not be subject to independent scrutiny by the IRP? Why does he think that this should be bypassed without local agreement? Given that quality issues are subject to a number of investigations before a TSA would be appointed, such as Care Quality Commission investigations and being placed in special measures, why cannot a thorough investigation of reconfiguration options be put to the IRP and the public?
	If the point of centralising a reconfiguration decision is to provide a quick solution, why are not the Government open to consultation with the public on the future of their local health services during the process of inspection by the CQC or the extended period of time during which a trust is in special measures? Speedy resolution of care failures is essential, but to go along with the Government’s proposals would be to suggest this sense of urgency appears only after months of work trying to address the problem. That is wrong, and it is little wonder that so many hospitals and so many communities believe that this legislation is setting them up to fail.
	The Government’s position on this is intellectually dishonest. In reaching the conclusion that the TSA process should be hijacked to provide a back-door reconfiguration tool, they have wilfully ignored professional, legal and medical advice, and have disregarded existing procedure. They have cost the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of pounds in defending their decision in the courts and they have added to the chaos into which they have already plunged the NHS. On Report we offered to work with the Government on a cross-party basis to produce a reconfiguration process and a TSA process that would have commanded broad public and political support. This offer was rejected.
	The Opposition’s amendments seek to make a bad law slightly better, but the truth is that more lifeboats on the Titanic would not have stopped it sinking. In case any Government Members ever actually believed the coalition agreement, a vote against our amendments today is a vote against that agreement. At their heart, our amendments are an attempt to help the Government to help themselves, but more importantly, to help all of those communities who expect to have a say in the future commissioning of their local hospital services. The next Labour Government will ensure that their voice is heard.

Paul Burstow: Listening to the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), it struck me that the Care Bill could be described as a Bill that was full of ideas that were proposed by the Labour party when it was in government, but was a modest measure. In some ways, I find those two positions contradictory, unless of course the last Government were not the bold, revolutionary Administration whom they often told us they were when they were in office. If we are indeed in a zombie Parliament, that is characteristic of the languid nature of opposition offered by the Labour party.

Barbara Keeley: rose—

Paul Burstow: I hope the hon. Lady will forgive me, but I will make some progress, just as the hon. Gentleman did earlier.
	Amendment 11B concerns the Human Rights Act, and I thank Ministers for keeping an open mind and for listening seriously to the concerns raised by Lord Low and others, and to me and other hon. Members who were concerned that an opportunity was being missed to close a gap. Legislation under the previous Government partially but not completely closed the gap, as a result of which those cared for in their own homes did not have the benefit of Human Rights Act protection. The amendment, which was agreed without a vote in the
	other place, gives that protection. It is the end of a story of seven years of dealing with a gap in the law that was opened by a court judgment. I am grateful that, notwithstanding the difficulties of our bicameral parliamentary process, it has worked at its best on this occasion, because it has meant that concerns raised through the Joint Committee that I chaired, through the Joint Human Rights Committee’s report and by Members in the other place, have now been comprehensively addressed.
	Having said that, will the Minister confirm that a person who avails themselves of provisions in the Bill that allow them, as a self-funder, to ask their local authority to arrange their care at the point at which they start to benefit from the means-testing arrangements, and therefore have some support from the local authority, will then be covered by the Human Rights Act?
	I would also like to thank the Minister for listening carefully to what has been said at each stage in the passage of the Bill, in both Houses, in respect of the trust special administration regime. It is important to emphasise that the approach set out by the previous Labour Government recognised that trust special administration was a last resort. Earl Howe has emphasised that in the other place. He was very clear that there are powers available to the Trust Development Authority and to Monitor to intervene as necessary in order to avoid trust special administration ever being triggered in the first place. I commend to Members the passage in House of Lords Hansard in which he sets out clearly all the steps that would need to be taken:
	“Trust special administrators would be appointed—and I make this point emphatically—only when all other suitable processes to develop sustainable, good healthcare have been exhausted.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 May 2014; Vol. 753, c. 1496.]
	It is worth picking up on the point made by the hon. Member for Copeland. Having been given the opportunity to chair a committee looking at the guidance, I think that some of the points he made in his amendments today are exactly the sort that ought to be given proper consideration in the guidance. I hope that he, other Front Benchers, and indeed other hon. Members who have experience of the only two trust special administration processes that have taken place to date, will offer the committee their views and insights so that we can ensure that the advice we give the Government on guidance is as good and as clear as possible.
	As was made very clear in the other place, we are not talking about a power that will effectively enable a wholesale reorganisation of the health economy. The Bill is very clear that this is about those matters that might require necessary and consequential changes. The amendments that were agreed in the other place, without a vote, make it clear that the essential services of trusts that find themselves drawn into a trust special administration process will be a proper consideration in the decision-making process.
	It is curious that the Labour party now seems to want us to look at access in a different way from the way in which the trust special administration process that it put in place provided for. In other words, why was there no test on access with regard to the trust that was in special administration under its arrangements? Why did that not matter then but does matter now?
	I think that the Government have listened very closely to what has been said and changed the Bill in a way that reflects the concerns that I described on Report. We will have the chance to comment further on the guidance—I hope that the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) and others will offer input into that—which will give us another opportunity to ensure that it is as tight and effective as possible on those very rare occasions when it is used.
	I hope that consideration of the Bill will be concluded today and that it will make the difference to well-being, as a central principle, and to parity between those who receive care and those who give it. That is what the Bill does, and they are great things, and it is about time that they were on the statute book.

Heidi Alexander: My hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Mr Reed) has already set out the case for the Opposition’s amendment in lieu of their lordships’ amendments regarding the TSA regime, and I wholeheartedly agree with all that he said.
	I would like to focus my remarks on why I believe that their lordships’ amendments do not undo the damage that lies at the heart of clause 119. While some people—I would probably include the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) in this—seem to think that their lordships’ amendments are something of a cause for celebration, in my view the changes fall far short of what is really needed, which is the complete deletion of clause 119. Even with these latest amendments, clause 119 removes the legal protection for hospitals that face the axe because they happen to be located next to a failing trust that has been placed into administration. We know that this legal protection was vital in the case of Lewisham. The Government, having been told by the courts that they broke the law, are now simply changing the law so that in future they can close much-needed services in successful hospitals to deal with financial problems in others.
	It has been suggested that the Lords amendments to clause 119 arose from discussions sparked off during debate on Report in this place. Yet the new clause we discussed then, which was tabled by, but then not supported by, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam was very different from what is before us today. Of course, we all remember what happened last time: the Lib Dems were simply bought off with the offer of chairing a committee. It is therefore worth comparing what we discussed on Report and what we are debating now. If I recall correctly, the new clause that the right hon. Gentleman had in his name a month or so ago proposed that the commissioners of services in hospitals that fall outside a trust in administration should have, in effect, a power of veto over recommendations put forward by an administrator.

Paul Burstow: No, it did not. It provided for parity of esteem between commissioners of affected trusts compared with the commissioner of the service that was failing.

Heidi Alexander: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s intervention. I pressed him on this very point on 11 March, when I asked whether his new clause
	“would provide a direct veto to commissioners of services at a hospital located outside the trust to which an administrator has been appointed.”
	He responded:
	“That is the intention, so the new clause has been drafted to have that effect.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 244.]
	The new clause proposed in March—we had a full debate and discussion about it—suggested that if the commissioners were content with the proposals put forward by a TSA, full public and patient consultation would kick in, whereas if the commissioners were not content, they would call a halt to the process. As I said, I pressed the right hon. Gentleman on that, and he was clear in the remarks that he made at the time.
	That is not what we are debating now. The amendment that was passed in the other place last week gives statutory consultation rights to commissioners of services in hospitals that fall outside the trust to which an administrator has been appointed. It suggests that changes to essential services that are proposed by the administrator but delivered outside the failing trust should not be caused harm, while seemingly leaving the definitions of “harm” and “essential services” to NHS England. The amended clause states that, should there be a difference of opinion between commissioners, NHS England will act as some sort of referee and have the final say.
	I contend that what we have before us today is very, very different from what was mooted in this place on Report. The changes to the Bill that the Government have introduced in the Lords are minor at best, and confusing and irrelevant at worst.

Paul Burstow: indicated dissent.

Heidi Alexander: The right hon. Gentleman is shaking his head, and I can see that he disagrees with me about this, so let us look at the committee which has been set up and which he is chairing. Is it actually going to make any difference? My fear is that it is just camouflage for the fundamental damage that will be caused by clause 119. The committee will supposedly look at the rules that govern the use of the trust special administration regime. The most important rules that govern the use of the TSA regime are being set today, in this House and by this Bill.

Paul Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very gracious. The reason the Lords amendment is important is that makes it clear that essential services in other trusts are now relevant to the guidance at which my committee will be looking.

Heidi Alexander: One person’s definition of “essential” might not be the same as that of another person.
	The Lords amendment tinkers at the edges of clause 119. Although it offers some marginal improvement on the Government’s original clause, it does not go far enough. I would vote for deletion again if I could, but parliamentary procedure does not afford me that opportunity. There is no doubt in my mind that this clause, even with the latest amendment, will allow more fast-track hospital closures in future. It removes the protection that existed in law, which allowed Lewisham council and the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign to take a case against the Government and win.
	The latest amendment may guarantee another layer of consultation, but it contains no overall guarantee that services will not be closed at successful hospitals to
	balance the books elsewhere. Is the Minister or the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam able to say unequivocally that had this amended clause been on the statute book at the time of the TSA regime in south London, the future of Lewisham’s A and E and maternity service would have been secure? They cannot, because it is not the case.
	In conclusion, I do not accept that their lordships’ amendment provides the protection that some believe it provides. The amended clause still extends and augments powers for TSAs and NHS bureaucrats. Even with the increased checks and balances contained within their lordships’ amendments, the TSA process is still a chaotic and rushed mechanism for closing hospital services. It plunges local health economies into desperate uncertainty and takes power away from the public and clinicians.
	I do not believe this is the way to make the sorts of changes our health service requires to meet the challenges of the 21st century. I have maintained that position throughout the passage of the Bill and I make no apology for sticking to my convictions to the end. The public do not want more fast-tracked hospital closures, but this Bill legislates for them.

Daniel Poulter: Before I turn to the amendments, I want to put on record my thanks to hon. Members for their contributions to today’s debate. I also want to express my thanks once again for all the contributions made by hon. and right hon. Members throughout the passage of the Care Bill and, indeed, for the contributions made by noble Members of the other place.
	The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) made a characteristically robust contribution in standing up for her local health care services. I also pay tribute once again to the contribution made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), not only today, but at the Bill’s inception, during its scrutiny by the Joint Committee and throughout its passage through this House and the other place. He has done a tremendous amount of work to ensure that the Bill is much better than it used to be. He deserves considerable praise for what he has done and the help he has given the Government in securing a Bill that is not just fit for purpose, but which will make significant changes and improvements to our health care system.
	It is worth bearing in mind that the Bill represents the most significant reform of care and support in more than 60 years, putting people and their carers in control of their care and support for the first time. The Bill will also put a limit on the amount that anyone will have to pay towards the costs of their care. It is a very big step forward and one that was long overdue. The Bill also delivers key elements of this Government’s response to the terrible events that took place in Mid Staffordshire and the recommendations of the Francis report by increasing transparency and openness and helping to drive up the quality of care across our NHS and social care system. I am pleased that the Government were able to table amendments that have been accepted in the other place, and I hope that those amendments will enjoy support in this House today.
	Before I turn to the substantive amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland (Mr Reed), I want briefly to address the points made about human rights
	legislation and the issue of direct payments. It is important to highlight that like clause 48 of the Bill, as originally drafted, and section 145 of the Health and Social Act 2008, which was the preceding provision, Lords amendment 11B relates to providers of social care registered with the Care Quality Commission, covering personal care provided at home and in residential care settings. The amendment covers physical assistance—for example, prompting someone to take their medication, dress, eat, drink and perform activities of daily living—but not non-personal care. To answer the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam, I am happy to confirm that when self-funders start to receive support from the local authority, they will indeed be covered by the Human Rights Act 1998.
	To turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland, it is worth highlighting to the House that, contrary to what he asserted, the TSA regime—let us remember that the regime was laid down by the previous Labour Government—has been substantively improved by the amendments made to the Bill. In particular, clause 118, which has been debated as clause 119 at various points, will extend the requirements on the trust special administrator to consult not just the public, staff of the failing trust and its commissioners, but other provider trusts, their staff and their commissioners, local authorities and local healthwatch organisations. There is therefore a comprehensive duty of consultation and engagement in the TSA regime, and that will be further strengthened by the amendments we are now discussing.
	Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 40B and amendment (c) to Lords 40C amount to wrecking amendments and, as I shall outline, amendment (b) to Lords amendment 40B is unnecessary and unworkable. Amendment (a) to Lords amendment 40B and amendment (c) to Lords 40C would mean that the recommendations of a trust special administrator could not restrict access to any services of another affected trust. Like previous ones, they are in effect wrecking amendments that would make it impossible for the administrator to do their job.
	Both Houses recognise that the NHS is a network and that no hospital is an island, and have already agreed that clause 118 must allow the administrator to take a holistic view of the local health and care economy to find the very best solution for a failing trust. That is of course in the best interests of local patients. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam outlined in Committee, it is right that a trust and its patients in particular are not thrown to the wolves when the quality of care is unsustainable or letting patients down, but that a holistic and broader view of the local health care economy can be taken. That was the previous Government’s intention in setting up the TSA regime, and it is our intention now. The previous Government were not the first Government who did not necessarily make their legislation accord perfectly with the intentions they outlined in impact assessments for the TSA regime. That is why we are now in the position of having to correct and improve the regime through the Bill.
	The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Copeland would undo the effects in relation to the trust special administrator’s regard to the wider health economy, and they would reverse the effect of clause 118, such
	that the administration regime would not be able to create a complete and workable solution to intractable problems or failures of patient care in the NHS. I am sure hon. Members will agree that that would be entirely undesirable, and that it would not be in the best interests of NHS patients, who must be protected where a hospital cannot deliver safe or sustainable care.
	Amendment (b) to Lords amendment 40B would give the trust special administrator significantly less time to finalise his or her draft recommendations about the future of a failing trust by requiring the publication of all correspondence between the administrator and commissioners at least 10 working days before publication of the draft report. Hon. Members will be aware that we have extended the time for the trust special administrator to draw up the report from 45 to 65 days and for the consultation from 30 to 40 days, because those processes need to be done properly.
	I remind hon. Members that transparency is already built into such processes at every stage. The administrator is required to publish the draft report submitted to Monitor and is expected to include in it the commissioners’ statement in agreement or disagreement to the report. Following consultation, the administrator’s final report is submitted to Monitor for a decision. That report, which Monitor must publish and lay before Parliament, again needs to present to the regulator the views of all affected commissioners. The administrator is required to attach to the final report a summary of all responses to its draft report that were received during the statutory consultation. That would include the views of all affected commissioners as respondents and explain what consideration was given to those responses. There is full transparency at every stage of the process. Quite apart from being wrecking amendments, the Labour amendments are therefore completely unnecessary.

Liz Kendall: Wrecking amendments? They are saving you from yourselves!

Daniel Poulter: The administrator, working closely with all affected commissioners and providers, may need to communicate in writing in the 10 working days before the draft report is published and submitted. Amendment (b) would therefore significantly reduce the time available to the administrator to develop and finalise the draft report and seek commissioners’ agreement. The hon. Member for Copeland said that he was concerned about that process, but his amendment would make it more difficult.
	Clause 118 will extend the time that is available to the TSA to develop the draft report. Amendment (b) would reverse that. That is irrational, undesirable and goes against the very point the hon. Member for Copeland made about having time to consider the best interests of commissioners and the local health economy. I thought that that was an unintended and unwanted consequence of the amendment, but having heard the comments of the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), I am not so sure. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press the amendments.
	In conclusion, the Government are committed to a TSA regime that is workable, transparent and in the best interests of patients. In cases of exceptional and significant care failure, lives are put at risk if a problem is not dealt with swiftly and effectively. It is for that
	reason that we are strengthening the regime in the Bill. I am very proud of the Bill and the opportunity that it offers to improve the health of and, the quality of care for, many people, particularly the frail elderly, those with disabilities and those with long-term care needs. It represents the most important step forward in integrating and better joining together health and social care for well over a generation. I hope that hon. Friends and hon. Members will support the Bill and the amendments that have been made to it.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Lords amendments 11B and 11C in lieu of words left out Commons amendment 1 agreed to..
	Lords amendment 32 to Commons amendment 32 and consequential Lords amendments 32C and 32 agreed to..

Clause 118
	 — 
	Powers of administrator etc.

Amendment (a) proposed to Lords amendment 40B.—(Mr Jamie Reed.)
	Question put, That the amendment be made.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 195, Noes 294.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83G).
	Lords amendments 40B to 40E in lieu of Commons amendment 40 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 42B and 42C lieu of Commons amendment 42 agreed to.
	Lords amendments 46B to 46E in lieu of Commons amendment 46 agreed to.

Eleanor Laing: Order. Will Members who have no interest in the forthcoming debate and are leaving the Chamber please do so quickly and quietly? Not to do so is a gross discourtesy to those who wish to speak.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURTS BILL (PROGRAMME) NO. 2

Ordered,
	That the Order of 24 February 2014 (Criminal Justice and Courts Bill (Programme)) be varied as follows:
	(1) Paragraphs (4) and (5) of the Order shall be omitted.
	(2) Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be taken in two days in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
	(3) Proceedings on Consideration shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.
	(4) Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.
	
		
			 Table 
			 Proceedings Time for conclusion of proceedings 
			 First day  
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to any of the following:   (a) driving offences;   (b) determination of the minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentences;   (c) committal of young offenders to the Crown Court for sentence. 7.00 pm 
		
	
	
		
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to any of the following:   (a) treatment, release and recall of prisoners;   (b) adult cautions;   (c) offences of sexual grooming of children or abduction of children;   (d) Armed Forces;   amendments to Part 1. 8.30 pm 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to any of the following:   (a) detention of young offenders;   (b) youth cautions;   (c) referral orders;   amendments to Part 2;   New Clauses and new Schedules relating to any of the following:   (a) trial in magistrates’ courts on the papers;   (b) charging offenders in respect of costs of criminal courts;   (c) collection of fines;   (d) appeals in civil proceedings, other than judicial review and challenges to planning-related decisions;   (e) wasted costs in civil proceedings;   (f) contempt of court;   (g) juries and members of the Court Martial;   amendments to Part 3. 10.00 pm 
			 Second day  
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to judicial review and challenges to planning-related decisions; amendments to Part 4. Two hours after commencement of proceedings on Consideration 
			 New Clauses and new Schedules relating to offences of possessing or using offensive weapons; remaining new Clauses and new Schedules; amendments to Part 5; remaining proceedings on Consideration. One hour before the moment of interruption 
		
	
	(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the second day.—(Mr Vara.)

Criminal Justice and Courts Bill
	 — 
	[1st Allocated Day]

Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee

New Clause 14
	 — 
	Offences committed by disqualified drivers

‘(1) After section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 insert—
	“3ZC Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers
	A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he or she—
	(a) causes the death of another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road, and
	(b) at that time, is committing an offence under section 103(1)(b) of this Act (driving while disqualified).
	3ZD Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers
	‘(1) A person is guilty of an offence under this section if he or she—
	(a) causes serious injury to another person by driving a motor vehicle on a road, and
	(b) at that time, is committing an offence under section 103(1)(b) of this Act (driving while disqualified).
	(2) In this section “serious injury” means—
	(a) in England and Wales, physical harm which amounts to grievous bodily harm for the purposes of the Offences against the Person Act 1861, and
	(b) in Scotland, severe physical injury.”
	(2) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) at the appropriate place insert—
	
		
			 “RTA section 3ZC Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers On indictment 10 years or a fine or both Obligatory Obligatory 3-11 
			 RTA section 3ZD Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers (a) Summarily (a) On conviction in England and Wales: 12 months or a fine or both. On conviction in Scotland: 12 months or the statutory maximum or both. Obligatory Obligatory 3-11”. 
			   (b) On indictment (b) 4 years or a fine or both    
		
	
	(3) In the entries in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 relating to an offence under section 3ZD of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
	(a) in relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference in column 4 to 12 months on summary conviction in England and Wales is to be read as a reference to 6 months, and
	(b) in relation to an offence committed before section 85 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 comes into force, the reference in column 4 to a fine on summary conviction in England and Wales is to be read as a reference to the statutory maximum.
	(4) Schedule(Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments)contains further amendments relating to the offences under sections 3ZC and 3ZD of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
	(5) The amendments made by this section and Schedule(Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments)have effect only in relation to driving which occurs after they come into force.’..—(Jeremy Wright.)
	This amendment makes the offence of causing death by driving while disqualified an indictable only offence and increases the maximum penalty for such conduct to 10 years’ imprisonment. It also creates an offence of causing serious injury by driving while disqualified - an either way offence with a maximum penalty of 4 years’ imprisonment
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Jeremy Wright: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 22—Penalty for driving while disqualified—
	‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) in the entry relating to the offence of obtaining licence, or driving, while disqualified, section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
	(a) in column 3 leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”;
	(b) in column 2 below “(c) On indictment, in Scotland”, insert “(d) On indictment, in England and Wales”; and
	(c) in column 3 below “(c) 12 months or a fine or both” insert “(d) 2 years or a fine or both”.
	(2) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference to 12 months is to be read as reference to six months.
	(3) The amendment made by this section applies only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which it comes into force.’.
	Makes the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.
	Government new schedule 2—‘Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments.
	Amendment 9,in clause 28, page26,line31, at end insert—
	‘(c) a submission from the DVLA to inform the court of any penalty points endorsed on the driver’s record.’.
	Amendment 8,page26,line35, at end insert—
	‘(3A) For cases involving driving offences, where the accused has 12 or more penalty points currently on their drivers’ record, any exceptional hardship plea previously made by the accused must be disclosed to the court.’.
	Government amendment 7.
	Government new clause 10—Term of imprisonment for murder of a police or prison officer.
	Government new clause 11—Committal for sentence of young offenders convicted of certain serious offences.

Jeremy Wright: Over a period of months, we have listened to concerns raised by the families of victims and hon. Members acting on their behalf about disqualified
	drivers. They have said that the current maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for causing death by driving when disqualified does not adequately reflect the tragic consequences of the offending. I am particularly grateful to, among others, my hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), and for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore) for keeping the issue firmly on the agenda. In our view, disqualified drivers who flout court bans, continue to drive badly and cause death should be treated far more seriously by the courts than they are at present, and I am pleased to say that new clause 14 and new schedule 2 will effect that change.
	We should also concern ourselves with disqualified drivers who cause serious injury. It is, after all, often a matter of chance whether the victim lives or dies. If there is no evidence that the offender was driving dangerously, the most with which he or she can be charged under the current law is driving while disqualified, which incurs a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment. That is plainly inadequate. It does not reflect some of the horrific and life-changing injuries that can be suffered by road traffic victims, or the terrible toll that this can take on their families. That is why we are also introducing a new offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving, which will incur a maximum penalty of four years’ imprisonment.
	We thought carefully about whether these changes should apply to unlicensed and uninsured drivers as well. We decided to limit the changes to disqualified drivers, because we think that they have a higher level of culpability than other illegal drivers. A driving ban would only be imposed on an offender following the commission of a series of motoring offences or a single serious offence. If such an offender flouts a ban imposed by the court, continues to drive badly and causes a death or serious injury, it is right that he should feel the full force of our proposed new provisions.

Keith Vaz: One of the areas that cause me concern is to do with drivers from other EU countries who may have been banned or disqualified in those countries but who come here and are allowed to drive in the United Kingdom. Is there anything in the Government proposals to stop them doing that?

Jeremy Wright: I entirely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s concern and I will come on to talk about the proposal we have for a wider review of sentencing in driving cases. He may well wish to make further submissions on the points he has made for inclusion in that review. A number of issues have already been raised which we think can sensibly be discussed in the course of that review, and I am sure there are some yet to be raised.

Susan Elan Jones: Can the Minister explain why being unlicensed was not included in this proposal? If one is unlicensed, one undoubtedly knows one is unlicensed, so why were such people taken out of this?

Jeremy Wright: I appreciate that this is a matter of judgment in all cases, but the distinction we have made is between those who have been disqualified by a court—in other words, they are subject to a court order—and have none the less gone on to drive, and those who are
	driving unlicensed, and, as the hon. Lady says, doing so knowingly, but not as a consequence of a court’s decision. That is the distinction we make, but I know she takes a considerable interest in driving offences and their consequences, and I am sure she will wish to engage with the review we will begin.

Julian Huppert: The Minister will be aware of the Road Justice campaign by the CTC and others. I and they very much welcome this review. Will he give us an idea of the time scale of the review and when we can expect the conclusions, because many of us would like to feed into them?

Jeremy Wright: We hope to conduct the review over the next few months and I hope that will give my hon. Friend and others the opportunity to contribute to it, but let me just finish what I am saying in relation to the specific proposals in new clause 14. I hope the House will agree that there is a need for these proposals. First and foremost the measures should give families of victims a greater sense that justice has been done. More generally, tougher sentences for convicted offenders should improve public confidence in the justice system. Amendment 7 changes the long title of the Bill to include driving. I commend these provisions to the House.
	I know that Members might like to see reform of other aspects of the road offence framework. Some have already been mentioned in the course of this debate. Indeed, new clause 22 seeks to make the offence of driving while disqualified an either-way offence and increase its maximum penalty; and we have, as I have indicated, been giving serious consideration to all representations made on this subject, not least from my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham, who has a ten-minute rule Bill on repeat offences of driving while disqualified. He and others rightly hold strong views and we are committed to ensuring that maximum penalties reflect the seriousness and culpability of offending behaviour. That is why, as we have already mentioned today and as the Justice Secretary made clear in his announcement on 6 May, the Government are committed to carrying out a wider review of the road traffic sentencing framework over the next few months. We are in discussion with the Department for Transport and other interested Departments about the details. We will make a further announcement about the scope of the review in due course.

Andy Slaughter: Could the Minister give us a sense of how this would fit with the legislative timetable? If primary changes are needed as a result of the review, will there definitely be a Bill to do that?

Jeremy Wright: Unless the hon. Gentleman is going to contradict me and vote accordingly, there is broad support for what we have set out in new clause 14, which is a self-contained measure that we do not think will have ramifications across the rest of the sentencing system. That is not true of some of the other changes that Members on both sides of the House may wish to make. As I have said, we have reached no pre-conclusions as to what should or should not be included in a review. However, we think it sensible to make sure that if we are to have a wholesale look at driving offences—which, unless the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter)
	is going to contradict me, there is considerable support for across the House—we should do it in a considered way. We are not talking about years for that to happen, but months.

Rehman Chishti: I thank my hon. Friend and his Department for listening to the victims of crime on the question of increasing sentences for those who commit the offence of killing people on our roads by driving while disqualified. On repeat offenders and the Bill that I introduced, I thank my hon. Friend for including such a provision in the review. However, does he agree that there is no one way of dealing with repeat offenders? Whether they are dealt with through a magistrates court, through an increased sentence in a criminal court, as I have suggested, or by making the offence an either-way offence, as the Opposition have suggested, the right approach is to carry out a comprehensive review, because there is no one way of dealing with the issue.

Jeremy Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to review all the options. He has already made a powerful case for his preferred option in dealing with repeat offences of driving while disqualified, and I know he will continue to do so. I hope the review will give him and others the opportunity to make the case they wish to make. In view of that, I hope the hon. Member for Hammersmith will consider whether it is necessary to press his new clause to a vote.
	Amendment 8 relates to cases where a defendant being tried under the single justice procedure has 12 or more penalty points on their record. Subsection (3) of proposed new section 16A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980, introduced by clause 28 of the Bill, specifies that a decision under the new single justice procedure must be made “in reliance only” on the documents sent to the accused, along with “any written submission” provided that aims to mitigate the sentence imposed. Under amendment 8, a defendant would additionally have to include in any written submission details of previous exceptional hardship pleas they had made to the court. I know the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) will make her case for the amendment in due course, but I presume that the intention is that the single justice procedure should be able to take that into account when considering any further submissions from the defendant requesting mitigation of their sentence.
	The Government share Members’ concerns about drivers who continue to drive when accumulating penalty points that would normally result in disqualification. As I have said, we will conduct a review of the wider sentencing framework for driving offences, and as I said to the hon. Lady during Justice questions last week, it may well be that there is a strong case for the inclusion of such a measure.

James Duddridge: My hon. Friend knows that I am very much in favour of making newly qualified drivers carry a probationary plate on their cars for two years to indicate that they might be a greater risk. Will he consider requiring disqualified drivers who re-qualify to have that probationary plate, partly as a punishment but partly to highlight the potential risk to others?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. He has a good record of campaigning on these issues, in which he takes considerable interest and has significant expertise, and we will certainly consider what he said. The review will allow new ideas such as his to be considered in the context of the sentencing framework.

Bob Neill: I agree with my hon. Friend that the development of the arguments we have heard in respect of other clauses reinforces the need for a more comprehensive look at the issue. In the light of the reassurance he has given to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), will he also ensure that the review looks not only at the basic sentencing powers but at the operation of the penalty points system, which we know is complex and sometimes itself creates incongruities?

Jeremy Wright: I think I am in danger of conducting the review this afternoon, but I agree with my hon. Friend, and all these things are worth considering for inclusion in the review. I simply sound this note of caution: if we review everything, we will exceed the proposed time scale and perhaps not deal with the concerns raised earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert). None the less, I am sure that there is a great deal that can sensibly be considered.
	I return to amendment 8 and point out that proposed new section 16C of our provisions already provides for cases in which the single justice proposes to disqualify a driver. The single justice must give the accused an opportunity to make representations about the proposed disqualification. If the offender fails to take up the opportunity to make representations, they may be disqualified in their absence. That is, of course, no different from what may occur under the magistrates court process. At present, offenders are disqualified in their absence when, having been warned about the purpose of the hearing, they do not attend court. When the defendant wishes to make representations, however, and that would include representations about exceptional hardship, the single justice must issue a summons to the defendant requiring them to appear at a traditional magistrates court. Any exceptional hardship plea may therefore be dealt with in open court, and the court would have the opportunity to investigate the defendant’s driving history. The Bill therefore already makes appropriate provision for the situation that the hon. Member for Bolton West is concerned about.

Julie Hilling: Does the Minister not accept that magistrates are not told why people have already cited exceptional circumstances? The magistrate has no idea what previous plea of exceptional circumstance was given. My amendment is about that issue, so that magistrates are made aware.

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Lady has just made a wider point than would apply simply to the single justice procedure. The point we are addressing in relation to her amendment is that there should be no significant disadvantage for those who are dealt with under the single justice procedure; nor should there be any disadvantage to the court under that procedure in ascertaining the facts of the case. If someone were wanting to assert particular hardship, which might exclude
	the possibility of disqualification, they would need to come to court and do it themselves. The court should then do the necessary investigations. However, I take her point and will consider carefully whether there are improvements that we can make to more general procedures.
	Amendment 9 is also related to the single justice procedure. It would introduce a new requirement that the documents sent to the defendant with the single justice procedure notice should include a submission from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to the court informing the court of any penalty points on the defendant’s driver record. I agree that up-to-date DVLA information is important when deciding the sentence for such offences. The House is aware that that very issue was raised in Committee, and as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), made clear, our intention then was to consider the point further.
	Under the existing procedure, when dealing with an offender in their absence, courts are able to check the DVLA position when sentencing for certain road traffic offences—we have discussed that point and, as I said, I accept that it is important that they are able to do the same under the new procedure. We need to ensure that the legislation allows for that in cases dealt with under the new single justice procedure as well. As I said, we have undertaken to look at the matter, and it is still under consideration. We will ensure the necessary consideration. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton West and her colleague the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane), whom I do not see here, will be satisfied.
	New clause 10 makes an amendment to schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which provides guidance to the courts in assessing the seriousness of all cases of murder in order to determine the appropriate minimum term to be imposed under the mandatory life sentence. The amendment would raise the starting point for offenders aged 21 and over from 30 years to a whole life order for the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of his or her duty.
	I do not need to remind the House of the vital role that those officers play every day in keeping our communities safe and in managing difficult and dangerous offenders. Tragically, some officers have paid the ultimate price while carrying out these duties on our behalf. The Government consider it essential that those officers feel the full weight of the state behind them in the execution of their duties. Changing the starting point to a whole life order for those who murder police and prison officers will send a powerful message of support for the work that those vital public servants do. It will show that we place the highest value on their safety and that we recognise the dangerous job they perform on a daily basis.
	Those officers can be distinguished from other public servants by the role they perform in terms of routine contact with dangerous offenders. Their daily duties and risks mean that they stand apart from others. That unique and important status should be recognised, and those who murder police or prison officers on duty should know that they face the most severe sentence possible under the law. I should make it clear that the change in the law does not necessarily mean that a whole life order will be imposed in every case involving the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of
	duty. The court must always have the discretion to impose the appropriate sentence based on all the facts of each case, but offenders should be in no doubt that they face the severest consequences for such murders. I therefore hope that the House will support the new clause.
	Finally, new clause 11 is designed to close a gap in the sentencing power of criminal courts that could prevent an adequate sentence being imposed where it turns out that the offending is more serious than it appeared when the case was initially accepted by the youth court. We believe the gap might tend to undermine efforts to encourage youth courts to try grave crimes in suitable cases and might restrict sentencing powers unduly. The category of offences that includes cases such as those that involve allegations of serious sexual offending against under-18s, for example—also known as grave crimes—are serious enough to be capable of being sent to the Crown court for trial, but not all of them necessarily require the highest sentencing powers of the Crown court. It might be possible to deal with some of them satisfactorily using sentencing options available in the youth court, and if so there is an advantage in retaining them in the youth court. The youth court is particularly attuned to inquiries into the alleged activities of children, and serious sexual offences can be tried there by authorised district judges who have been specially trained to deal with them.
	A defendant under 18 charged with such an offence is invited to indicate a plea, and when a guilty plea is indicated the youth court may commit him or her to the Crown court for sentence where appropriate. On the other hand, if the indication is not guilty and the youth court decides to retain the case and tries and convicts the defendant, there is no general power to commit the offender to the Crown court for sentence. That means that if information emerges during the trial that suggests that a more severe sentence is appropriate, the youth court will simply have to make do with its own sentencing powers. The only exception is when the conditions for imposing an extended determinate sentence are met, but they are stringent. That is at odds with the position for adults, where there is a general power to commit cases to the Crown court for sentence, not merely after a guilty plea.
	It is possible that the absence of a safety net allowing for committal for sentence leads youth courts to be unnecessarily cautious in deciding whether to retain grave sexual crimes. A provision permitting committal to the Crown court for sentence whenever a defendant is convicted of a grave crime in the youth court, as is already possible after a guilty plea indication, might encourage the youth court to retain more cases and ensure adequate sentencing powers are available in every case. I hope that the House will therefore support new clause 11.

Andy Slaughter: We are grateful to the Government for accommodating the topics we want to discuss today and for the overall allocation of time on Report. We do not hear that very often, but it is in part a result of Report running over two days—or at least a day and a half—as a consequence of this being a carry-over Bill.
	We anticipate that there will be about 10 hours of debate, including Third Reading, and curiously only half the time will be spent on the Bill as it left Committee. Today, we have three hours on parts 1 to 3 and on day
	two we will have two hours on the important and controversial part 4, which attacks the legal and financial basis of judicial review claims. The rest of the time is for new projects proposed by the Lord Chancellor or by his Back Benchers with his support. He has a common but unwelcome habit of shoehorning new laws into Bills at every stage of their progress through both Houses. A cynic would say that he does so simply to provide another hit with the tabloids or to introduce a stick to beat his coalition partners with. It is certainly a poor way to legislate, and he has surpassed himself by tabling new clauses on driving offences that require him to amend the long title of the Bill through Government amendment 7—I do not think the Minister mentioned that amendment, but I apologise if he did.
	Neither the new clauses on driving in the first group for discussion today nor those on offences of possessing offensive weapons have taken the Government by surprise. There was a full debate in the Chamber on the subject of dangerous driving in Back-Bench time on 27 January and, famously, the issue of carrying knives featured in the Tory manifesto.

Jeremy Wright: The hon. Gentleman knows that I hold him in high regard and affection, but he has accused me of rushing into new clause 14. Now he is telling me that it did not catch me by surprise and I should have done it earlier.

Andy Slaughter: If the Minister waits, all will become clear.
	We do not quarrel with the seriousness of any of the matters under discussion on Report. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) will raise our concerns about offences against armed forces personnel—matters that we, unlike the Government, flagged up in Committee. This is a sloppy way of making law and nowhere was that more clear than with last week’s announcement that new offences and new sentences for existing offences on some driving matters would be tabled today. At the same time, as the Minister has conceded, the Secretary of State announced that a full review of all driving offences and penalties would be carried out over the next few months.
	Let us pause there for a moment. If the Government are reviewing all offences over the next few months, why do they need to change the law for one offence and introduce a brand-new offence in the Bill? I suspect that my curiosity is shared by the Minister, who replied to the debate on 27 January. We heard nine compelling and moving speeches on that day from Members on both sides of the House explaining how their constituents had been victims of dangerous, careless, drunken or disqualified drivers but how the culprits had escaped with what appeared to be lenient penalties. He carefully and courteously, as is his wont, lowered expectations, saying:
	“Having emerged blinking into the daylight from the usual channels into my current job, I know better than to commit parliamentary time for any purpose”.
	He added sagely:
	“It is important for us to consider these matters in the round, and to do so in a way that does not create discrepancies in the sentencing system.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2014; Vol. 574, c. 731.]
	Four months later, time has been found to do exactly what the Minister warned against.
	The Minister might ask whether that matters if we are moving in the right direction. The groundswell of opinion expressed in that debate and outside the House is that the two-year maximum sentence for causing death by disqualified driving is inadequate, as it leads to an average sentence of about nine months in custody. We agree and we will not oppose the new clause, but is 10 years the correct figure? It is double the maximum for causing death by careless driving, arguably a more serious offence as the quality of driving is an issue. Equally, it seems anomalous to create an offence of causing serious injury by disqualified driving when no equivalent is proposed of causing serious injury by careless driving or even causing serious injury by careless driving while under the influence of drink and drugs—an offence with a maximum sentence of 14 years when it causes death.
	Why has causing death by disqualified driving been singled out? As the Minister said, the current offence brackets causing disqualified driving with driving without insurance and driving without a licence. Will causing death by driving in those two circumstances remain punishable with a two-year maximum sentence? I am afraid that this bears all the hallmarks of the Secretary of State’s penchant for plucking new offences out of the air and pushing them forward to show what a tough guy he is. There were only 13 convictions in the last year for which figures are available for all offences of causing death while disqualified, uninsured or without a licence. How many cases will the change in the law affect?
	Perhaps the Secretary of State will say that the change is intended as a deterrent to others, but how many disqualified drivers will be put off by the thought that they might kill or cause serious injury? There is no evidence of careless or dangerous driving in their cases, because they would then be charged with those offences. That brings me to new clause 22, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central, which we believe is a more effective way of tackling the problem that the Secretary of State and the Minister have rightly identified.
	More than 7,000 people were convicted of driving while disqualified in 2012, a substantial reduction since 10 years previously but still a great number of people who wilfully defied an order of the court and carried on driving while banned. Our answer is to make the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of two years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment, which the Magistrates Association has been calling for for some time. Currently, the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified is six months and it is a summary only offence. Although that might be sufficient for a first or even second-time offender, it does not address the minority of recidivist offenders who have multiple disqualifications on their record and carry on driving oblivious to the courts.

Bob Neill: I understand the point the hon. Gentleman is making, although I do not totally agree with it. Limiting the penalty to two years might reflect some aggravation that arises in instances of disqualified driving which give rise to injury. Does he not concede, however, that even if we allow for aggravation in respect of sentencing, a two-year sentence probably would not be
	enough to reflect justice for an injury that might be life-changing but which stops short of involving the offence of causing death by dangerous driving? The person’s life would be ruined for keeps, which would not be captured adequately by a two-year sentence, as under his proposal—four years might be nearer the mark.

Andy Slaughter: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments, but he is misunderstanding me slightly. We do not oppose new clause 14. I would wish to have seen it remain part of the review, because of the arguments I have put forward about the substantial overlap with a number of other offences, most of which were introduced by the previous Labour Government in previous review—I think we are all agreed that that was necessary. We do not disagree that a review is needed now, but our new offence is of a different type and serves a different and, we say, a more effective purpose in discouraging drivers who are tempted to drive while disqualified. What the Government are doing—it may be right, but let us see it “in the round”, as the Minister would say—is looking at the more serious offences, where there has to be a balance between the nature of the offence and the maximum penalty.

Rehman Chishti: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the six-month sentence for repeat offenders who drive while disqualified is completely wrong, and I put that view forward in a private Member’s Bill in December. There was a reason why driving while disqualified was moved away from being an “either way” offence to being a summary offence: these cases may have taken up a lot of court time. Does he agree that a way to overcome that is to have the matter tried and dealt with at the magistrates court, and for the magistrate to have the discretion to refer repeat offences to the Crown court for a sentence of up to two years? That would deal with the problem. If those repeat offenders are not dealt with at an early stage, we should not then say, “Tough sentence at the end”; they can be dealt with at the lower end.

Andy Slaughter: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman needs to make a speech now. I do not disagree with him—there is a strong measure of agreement here—but he is proposing a complicated resolution whereas we are proposing something more straightforward. It will certainly be a help if the Government get their act together and implement the part of the 2003 Act which will allow magistrates to sentence for 12 months for a single offence, although we still think that that is insufficient for this offence. If repeat offenders plead guilty and are released at the halfway point of sentence, they are likely to serve no more than eight weeks, however many times they have previously been disqualified. Tougher sentences for this offence will act as a deterrent, warning others that driving while disqualified is unacceptable; stamping out driving while disqualified before death or serious injury is caused is Labour’s priority.
	A two-year maximum sentence for those serial offenders means that they can expect to spend up to four times longer in prison than is the case now—and of course they would be off the road for all that time. There should not be much difference between the parties on these issues. As I say, we do not oppose the Secretary of
	State’s new clause 14, despite our reservations, but we would like the Government to support our new clause 22. If they do not, we will put it to a vote of the House; unless the Secretary of State can give me some assurance that they will either support that or at least push those views forward in the review he is doing, we would wish to vote on that matter.

Rehman Chishti: I am listening to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He said that what I put forward in a private Member’s Bill is complicated. How is it complicated, given that we both agree about repeat offenders? In 2012, 42% of the 7,000 who were sentenced were repeat offenders, with 23% having offended more than three times. It is repeat offenders who pose the risk and who are likely to get two years. Why can we not trust the magistrates to deal with this and then send it to the Crown court? That would stop the Crown court being clogged up. Let us trust the magistrates.

Andy Slaughter: With respect, I do not think the Crown court is going to be clogged up. We are talking about different ways of skinning the same cat, so if we do go to a vote, I look forward to the hon. Gentleman joining us in the Lobby.
	Let me briefly deal with the other matters in this group. I commend the amendments standing in the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) and for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). They were discussed in Committee—the Opposition are very disciplined about these matters—and I remain hopeful that the Government will see fit to accept them at some stage. They deal with the egregious issue of multiple offenders escaping “totting up” bans because the courts either do not have the requisite information from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in front of them or are, unknown to them, being told the same sob story for the fourth of fifth time. As a result, there are still people driving with two or three times the 12 points that should have seen them banned. There is no connection between those matters and new clauses 10 and 11. Both deal with serious matters, but it is puzzling that, once again, they have been shoehorned into the Bill at this stage. However, let me deal with them briefly.
	The murder of a police officer is a heinous crime, and 13 police officers have been killed in the line of duty since 2000. The courts already take their sentencing powers very seriously, and the starting point for this is 30 years. The killers of Sharon Beshenivsky received 35 years each, the murderer of PC Ian Broadhurst received 37 years and the murderer of PCs Fiona Bone and Nicola Hughes received a whole life sentence. The courts are already effectively exerting these powers, but we have no objection to the clarification, if I may put it that way, that the Government wish to introduce, particularly, as the Minister has said, as judicial discretion will remain in these cases. Thankfully, this proposal is not going to affect many cases, but it deals with the most serious crimes that are committed.
	Finally, new clause 11 is a sensible tidying measure. As the Minister says, it already applies to adult offences, so, although I am always puzzled to read the headlines in The Daily Telegraph, I was particularly puzzled to see a headline where the Secretary of State was saying, “We will toughen sentences for youth crime”. The new clause
	is sensible and we support it, but it is about giving more discretion to magistrates. It is about empowering magistrates courts to try cases where they might previously have felt that they had to second-guess the decision and commit the case to the Crown court; it is not about inflicting additional burdens on the Crown court, and I just wish the Government would not spin at every opportunity.
	We have a good degree of consensus on this part of the debate and it would perhaps be complete consensus if the Government see reason and adopt our new clause 22. I know that the hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) will agree with us, because his private Member’s Bill proposes much the same thing, but so would the Secretary of State, were he to grace us with his presence, because he has said:
	“I want to make our roads safer and ensure people who cause harm face tough penalties. Disqualified drivers should not be on our roads for good reason. Those who chose to defy a ban imposed by a court and go on to destroy innocent lives must face serious consequences for the terrible impact of their actions.”
	Let us take action against disqualified drivers at an early stage. I urge the Government to support new clause 22.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Eleanor Laing: I call Robin Walker. Sorry, I mean Chris Skidmore. I beg the hon. Gentleman’s pardon.

Chris Skidmore: You would not be the first person to make that genuine mistake, Madam Deputy Speaker. I entirely forgive you for it, and thank you ever so much for calling me.
	I rise to speak in support of new clause 14, and I thank the Minister and the Department for including it in the Bill. It seems like only yesterday when, on 27 January 2013, I received a telephone call and discovered that two of my constituents, Ross and Clare Simons, had been killed that evening while riding a tandem bike down Lower Hanham road in Kingswood. They had been struck by a driver who had been driving, in a police chase, at 70 mph in a 30 mph zone. Obviously, this was devastating for all the families, and when I went to the vigil a week later, I said to Ross’s father, Edwin Simons, that I would do everything in my power as the local Member of Parliament to stand up for the families and for victims. That is what this clause is about: making sure we send out a message that it is unacceptable to cause death by driving while disqualified. For people watching this debate it is simply common sense to say that people who kill through driving while disqualified should never have been in the car in the first place. People wondering why the law has never been toughened up will see that it makes perfect sense to introduce this new clause.
	After that fateful day on 27 January 2013, I set up, with the families, the petition “Justice for Ross and Clare”, which called for far tougher penalties for disqualified drivers, especially those who kill by dangerous driving. The perpetrator, Nicholas Lovell, who went to jail, had 69 previous convictions, 11 of which were for driving offences, and he had been disqualified four times. We can only imagine the families’ grief when they found
	out in court that this person had not only taken away these innocent young lives but done so while he was disqualified. For more than a decade and a half, he had shown a complete disregard for the law.
	Our petition gathered 15,000 signatures, and we took it to No.10 Downing street. As part of the campaign, I led the Backbench Business debate on 27 January 2014, which the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) mentioned, and 30 Members took part. It was clear then, and a testament to the power of Backbench Business debates, that we had cross-party consensus for changing the law. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) for introducing a ten-minute rule Bill on the matter. I am glad that this discussion is taking place today.

Karl Turner: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the work that he has done in relation to this matter. Does he agree that what we should be doing is punishing people who drive while disqualified per se? The higher-end penalty should be for driving while disqualified. The maximum two years, as I think it is now, should be increased, so that we might avoid at a later stage the terrible incident of death while driving disqualified.

Chris Skidmore: The important thing to recognise in new clause 14 is that it sends out a message and hope for future legislation. When I first began the campaign, many families were fairly sceptical that there would be any change, particularly this side of the general election. There was a concern that politicians would sit on their hands and not do anything. By passing this new clause we would be opening up future debate. I have great sympathy with new clause 22, but I have not had the time to study the implications of it in detail. If that could be part of the overall review that is taking place, I would absolutely welcome that.
	When considering this review, I want to make a pitch for the families of Ross and Clare Simons that we look again at causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. At the moment, the crime is just death by driving. Nicholas Lovell, who killed Ross and Clare Simons, was given the maximum sentence of 14 years—it is one of the only times that such a sentence has been delivered by the judge. As Lovell pleaded guilty, he was given 10 years and six months. The judge at the time said that had he the legal power, he would have given out a far tougher sentence. He gave the maximum, but he recognised that, because Lovell had been disqualified, there should have been an additional aggravating factor, or that an additional maximum tariff should have been added to the sentence. I would therefore welcome the review looking at death by dangerous driving while disqualified and upping that sentence.

Karl Turner: What the hon. Gentleman is saying, in my respectful submission, is that the judiciary and the courts should have more discretion over sentencing. New clause 22 does just that, does it not?

Chris Skidmore: We need to look again at the maximum tariff for causing death by dangerous driving while disqualified. The judge at the time wished for that power. I do not know the precise implications, which is why we need a review in the round. We need uniformity
	across the piece. One thing I realised from the Backbench Business debate was that I was not alone; the families were not alone. We heard about some of the awfully brief sentences that had been handed out, and the unequal nature of those sentences. It is very hard for a grieving family to find out that, in what seems to be an almost identical case, the sentence handed out in one area is entirely different from that handed out in another area. I would like to ensure that we put in place a rigid framework. Obviously, judges should have discretion as well, but victims need to understand—I am not a lawyer and I struggle at times to follow the complicated processes of the law—that if someone is disqualified, they should not be in a car in the first place; that is common sense. Nicholas Lovell should never have been in that car when he ploughed into Ross and Clare Simons’s tandem. It is for those families that new clause 14 has been introduced. For me and for the local families, it is Ross and Clare’s law.
	I would love it if we could get things on the statute book before the general election. I understand that the processes of law are very slow, but I hope that we can have cross-party consensus for this part of the review. Knowing that all three parties are signed up to change will be a great comfort for the families.

Julie Hilling: I wish to talk specifically to amendments 8 and 9 that are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane). There is something very strange happening with driving penalties. The law says that a driver should be banned if they receive 12 points on their licence, unless they would face exceptional hardship. It also says that the same plea for exceptional hardship should be used only once. I would not be surprised if there were a few people driving legally with 15 points, but I would not expect there to be 8,000 people frequently driving with many more points. I would not expect a person in Liverpool to be driving with 47 points on their licence, or a woman in Bolton to be driving with 27 points on her licence. I wonder how many pleas of exceptional hardship they have made. I am not sure I could even think up that many pleas to put before the courts.
	Exceptional hardship is not about losing one’s job, but it could be about losing one’s home or about other people losing their job. The terms of exceptional hardship are very narrow, so why did the Squeeze singer Chris Difford escape a driving ban after pleading that it would cause exceptional hardship as he would no longer be able to travel the country playing gigs? The 47-year-old earns up to £100,000 a year performing around the country and was caught doing 88 mph on a 70 mph road.
	The son of Tony Christie, famous for his song “Is this the way to Amarillo” claimed exceptional hardship because he would not be able to drive his dad to gigs after he totted up 25 points. The jockey Kieren Fallon escaped a driving ban after he claimed that it would cause exceptional hardship because the state of the racing industry was such that he could not afford a full-time driver. Premiership footballer Zak Whitbread, who admitted speeding at 97 mph with 17 points already on his licence, escaped a ban after saying that he would not be able to find another football job if he could not drive.
	There are many other cases of people who have escaped bans. Not all of those 8,000 people are famous, but often they are rich enough to pay a good barrister to get them off. Alex Williams, the Tory candidate for Stretford and Urmston at the last general election, got off because he said that he would not be able to afford to pay his £2,000 a month mortgage if he could not drive. I do not understand why those people could not pay somebody to drive them around. They could have taken a taxi, train or bus like the rest of us.
	As I have already said, drivers cannot use the same exceptional hardship plea each time they are taken to court, but there is no central record of which plea has been used. There is also no record of whether these drivers are involved in later accidents. If a driver can clock up 47, 27 or even just 15 points, they must have a disregard for the law and therefore pose a risk to other road users.

Mike Kane: I congratulate my hon. Friend on her campaign in her constituency. When the points system was established, it was never intended that so many people would get away with so many sob stories, and that we would have so many thousands of people driving on our roads. Magistrates do not know, because the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has not informed them, that sob stories are repeated and used time and again.

Julie Hilling: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I remember the days of endorsements. We introduced the points system to give us more flexibility, but 12 points was regarded as the threshold for losing one’s licence. If more people are driving around with more than 12 points on their licence, it lessens the effect of the deterrent. It may lead people to think, “Perhaps I can get away with driving around with more than 12 points on my licence.” The whole threat of people losing their licence after 12 points, so therefore driving within the law, has been weakened.
	Of course we need to tackle the sentencing of people convicted of causing death or serious injury by dangerous driving or driving while banned, but the whole issue of driving offences—and the way that cars can be used as weapons—needs to be addressed. We need drivers to realise, at every level of offence, that bad behaviour will be punished in order to make our roads safer. TheBolton News, my local daily paper, has been campaigning on this issue for some time. It ran a survey a while ago in which 83% of people agreed that 12 points should mean that drivers are banned. There is real support for that proposition.
	We know that young people aged 15 to 24 are more likely to die in road accidents than as a result of any other single cause and, sadly, the number of deaths is increasing. Of course we need justice for those who have lost loved ones, but we also need deterrence. We have to take road safety and driver behaviour seriously, and do everything we can across the spectrum, from the point at which people start offending behaviour in a car to the final catastrophic effect of a terrible accident.
	I have been trying to raise the issue of 12 points in various ways for several years, often with the support of Brake. Transport Ministers told me to speak to Justice Ministers, who told me to talk to the Sentencing Council, which told me to go back and speak to Transport
	Ministers. I am therefore relieved to have a place in which to raise this issue, although I accept—given what the Minister said—that the issue will not be solved in its entirety. I have spoken to magistrates and the Institute of Advanced Motorists about this very issue, and they are very concerned about it. The magistrates raised the issue of the difficulty of getting accurate information from the DVLA about the number of points that a driver has. Secondly, magistrates are concerned that there is no record of the pleas used. Although a driver cannot officially use the same plea of exceptional hardship, the magistrates have no way of knowing whether it has been used before. Thirdly, the magistrates worry about a lack of consistency. Different magistrates accept different pleas of exceptional hardship, so some drivers are allowed to keep their licence in some courts whereas others in other courts are not.

Robert Buckland: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Lady’s excellent speech, and I am very sympathetic to the important points that she makes. One other area she might want to consider is whether the police national computer, which records the previous convictions of everybody in England and Wales, should be enhanced so that exceptional circumstance pleas could be set out briefly in a document which would then be put before any court considering a fresh application.

Julie Hilling: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting and important point. However we capture such information, it needs to be made available to magistrates, and that is an excellent suggestion.
	I accept that the amendments would not solve all of the problems that I want to address of people driving with more than 12 points on their licences, of consistency of sentencing and of magistrates having the correct information. If the Minister will specifically commit to looking at the issue of 12 points and sentencing, I will not press my amendment to a vote.

Julian Huppert: It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) who spoke so clearly on this issue. I agreed with much of what she said about this huge problem. It is astonishing how many people get off time after time. Some law firms even advertise their incredible success rates in achieving that, which we do not want to see.
	There may be extenuating circumstances or special cases occasionally, but once someone has said they know they should be banned, and then makes a desperate plea, they should be more careful afterwards. It is not impossible to drive for quite a long time without breaking any rules or getting any points on your licence—some people have clean driving licences. Certainly if I had nine points, or even 12 points, I would try very hard indeed not to speed or drive dangerously. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the review.
	I have a couple of pedantic points about the hon. Lady’s amendment, as I do not think it covers everything that it needs to. However, that is not the point for today. I hope that we can get the right changes that most of the House would want to see. I welcome the Government’s announcement of a review, and I hope that it will be
	a substantial review. I also hope that the Minister is successful in obtaining parliamentary time to ensure that the results of the review become law. A review will not solve the problem on its own.
	I pay tribute to the work done by the CTC’s road justice campaign, which produced an excellent report called “Road Justice: the role of the police”—I know that the Minister has had some discussions with that organisation—which looked not only at the legal aspects, but at the role of the police and the prosecution. The law is not the only issue. Too often, especially when pedestrians or cyclists are the victims of collisions, the police do not investigate sufficiently to allow charges to be brought. In several cases, people have come to my surgery having been involved in a collision in which someone else behaved very dangerously and the police simply were not interested in doing the basic groundwork, such as taking photographs of the scene at the time. There is very little point us getting the law right if the police do not investigate and prosecutors do not take action. I know that the Minister is not responsible for the police, but I hope the review will look more broadly at the issue to ensure that its proposals will make a difference.
	The campaign has had some 12,000 signatures, so we need some action in response. Some of the cases are astonishing. In one case, a gentleman had been drinking and smoking cannabis and then was speeding, with his girlfriend riding pillion, and crashed and killed a pedestrian. He had 45 previous traffic offences but apparently there was not enough evidence to charge him with causing death by dangerous driving, even though there was a clear cause of death—dangerous driving—and he had a long track record. He did get 18 months in jail, but the fact that prosecutors did not even feel able to bring a charge of death by dangerous driving is a problem.

Karl Turner: Prosecutions are made on whether there is enough evidence to bring the charge and, secondly, whether it is in the public interest. I do not mean to criticise the hon. Gentleman, but it may be a little unfair to say that a prosecution for dangerous driving should have been brought in that particular case. Perhaps there was good reason why it was not.

Julian Huppert: The hon. Gentleman right: I have not been through all the court transcripts in that case. But it is not an isolated case. It is a similar story in literally hundreds of cases—we have heard some today and many others have been collected in various places. I am sure he is not trying to suggest that he would agree with the action taken in every one of those cases.
	One problem—and having spoken with many people about this, I cannot see an easy resolution to it—is that juries are often not prepared to convict on offences that perhaps they should be. Prosecutors can have a tendency to low-ball the charge to ensure a conviction. I hope that the review will address that issue, because none of us want to see charges being brought that juries feel are simply too serious to convict.

Susan Elan Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we are also looking for a cultural change here? In the same way that the present generation does not talk about “having a drink for the road” as might have
	happened 30 or 40 years ago, we seek a cultural change in attitudes to the offences for which people should serve prison terms.

Julian Huppert: I think we have seen a cultural change. The sentencing aspect is a very small part of that, as I am sure the hon. Lady would agree. The success of the drink-driving law is not the number of people prosecuted: it is the number of people who do not drink and drive. We need a cultural change that suggests that dangerous behaviour, whether it is driving too fast or cutting people up, is simply not acceptable.
	We are seeing other changes that are making driving safer, such as the introduction of 20 mph speed limits. That is happening very successfully in my constituency in Cambridge, where we are seeing some driver behaviour changes, but it is still early days. The changes will start to get across the idea that driving or travelling in any form of transport carries a risk of doing incredibly serious harm to other people.
	I am sure that for many Members, the most dangerous activity that we do—the thing that has the most chance of killing another person—is driving. The vast majority of us will never kill anyone, but it is still a risk. So sensible speed limits and the enforcement of them, as well as the sanctions available in the extreme cases, are helpful. What we want to avoid is sanctioning people when there is a death or serious injury; we want to change behaviour. Drink-driving is not acceptable, regardless of whether or not it ends up killing somebody. The risk is simply too large. There is largely agreement about that and considerable expectation from the House that the Ministers’ review will make a large difference. That will help drivers to be safer on the roads. It will reduce collisions and make pedestrians and cyclists a lot safer, which I welcome.
	I turn briefly to new clause 10 about the term of imprisonment for the murder of a police or prison officer. When the Minister winds up, I would be grateful if he could clarify the role of judicial discretion in this area. It is always helpful for us to set out what the base should be, but I would like to hear confirmation from him that he believes in the principle of judicial discretion and that judges will be able to look at the details of almost any offence.

Jeremy Wright: With the leave of the House, I shall try to respond to some of the points made in the debate which, as we came to expect in the course of Committee, was instructive and well balanced. I start with the remarks of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), who made his case for new clause 22. He kindly indicated that he has no objection to new clause 14, which I welcome, and he made it clear that he has little objection to some of the other measures in this group, and I am grateful for that.
	As I said in my earlier remarks, we intend to consider a number of aspects of the criminal law in connection with driving offences in the course of the review that I described. I can certainly undertake to the hon. Gentleman that the issue of driving while disqualified, particularly where it involves repeat offending, which is the type of offending highly likely to lead to sentencing at the top end of the scale, whatever that scale may look like in the
	future, is something that we are highly likely to want to consider as part of the review. I am sure he will maintain his case for the inclusion of that.
	The difference between the circumstances we are considering in relation to new clause 14 and the circumstances we are considering in relation to new clause 22 was conveyed very movingly, as we have heard before, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore). New clause 14 is designed to address what we perceive to be some egregious cases in which sentencing powers were not adequate. It was clear to us from those cases that we should plug that gap in the sentencing regime. There are other questions that we have to ask about driving offences and how those offences are punished, which are about whether we have pitched properly the sentencing powers of the judiciary. But we have not yet had the opportunity to consider in detail the implications of the change set out in new clause 22, and I doubt very much that the hon. Gentleman has, either.

Andy Slaughter: With all due respect to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), the tragic case of Clare and Ross Simons that he described was a very serious case of causing death by dangerous driving. Even though the driver was disqualified, it was not a case of disqualified driving. It would not in any way be affected by new clause 14. The Minister has made the case against himself. It is clear why new clause 22 has been canvassed over a long period by practitioners, the Magistrates Association and others. There is an overwhelming case for increasing that nugatory summary only sentence. The position is far more complicated, as shown by some of the tensions that have come out in the debate, which is why new clause 14 is a little precipitate, even if it is going in the right direction. Will the Minister give a clear undertaking that there will be an increase in the sentence for driving while disqualified? If not, we will press the new clause to the vote this evening.

Jeremy Wright: I will come back to the point about how much we know about the implications of new clause 22. To deal with the case of specific examples, the point that I am making in relation to what my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood said is that where it is brought to our attention that there are particular gaps in the sentencing regime, it is appropriate that we look very carefully of those. The case that precipitated the decision to table new clause 14 was the case of Mr Stock, who was killed in precisely the circumstances that new clause 14 would address.
	It is important that when such cases are brought to our attention, we look carefully at whether there is a gap in the law, and we then look at how that gap might best be remedied and what the consequences of doing so might be. The reason that we did not respond immediately to such cases, and the reason that I did not respond to the Back-Bench debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred by saying straight away, “Yes, of course, we will change the law immediately and we will do so in the following way,” is that it is important to consider all the ramifications of making changes.
	We have had the opportunity to do that in relation to what we now propose as new clause 14. We have a good idea, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of how many cases might be affected, and what effect that would have
	on the work load of the Crown court and of the Prison Service. I wonder whether he has any idea what the ramifications for the Court Service or for the Prison Service would be of the change that would be made by new clause 22. That does not mean to say that after we have considered those ramifications properly and carefully, we would not come to the conclusion that it is the right thing to do, but we are not going to do so today, for the reasons that I have set out.
	If the hon. Gentleman reflects, and given that he hopes to be in government himself in less than a year—[Interruption.] I am not saying that he will, just that he hopes to. If that eventuality ever came to pass, I do not think he would wish to make policy any differently from the way I am suggesting we should do so. If that is right, I cannot, as he would understand, accept new clause 22 today. I have gone as far as I think I sensibly can, which is to say that it will certainly form part of the review that we intend to undertake, and if we conclude as a result of the review that it is the right thing to do, we shall do it.

Andy Slaughter: I think the Minister is playing with me a little. I have used the best evidence I can and as I said, I have spoken to practitioners and to the Magistrates Association about the matter. I am advised that the clause is likely to affect only a small minority of cases, which are the recidivist cases. The Minister has access to that degree of detail and that information. Perhaps he could tell us how many cases he thinks would be affected.

Jeremy Wright: As I have tried to indicate to the hon. Gentleman, I would want to look at all those things. He is right—I do not know. We have to look at the matter carefully and I am sure he would want us to do that. Between the point at which he decided to table new clause 22 and this debate taking place, there has not been an opportunity to do that work, which we would want to do. He is welcome to continue looking a gift horse in the mouth if he so wishes, but what I am saying to him, I hope very clearly, is that we are certainly not shutting the door on what he is proposing, but neither are we going to accept it today without doing the proper work. No responsible Government could do otherwise. He may or may not want to be part of a responsible Government, and if it is not a responsible Government, he may want to do things differently, but that is the way we do things for as long as we are in government.
	Let me move on to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood. Again, he spoke movingly, as he has before, of justice for Ross and Clare Simons. He also made the case for including in the review the issues of death by dangerous driving by those who are disqualified, and we will certainly consider that matter also.
	The hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) made, as she has done before, a good case in relation to those who have multiple points on their licence and are somehow not yet disqualified. She is right to be concerned about that, as are we. We would want to consider that matter, too, at greater length. There is, as she knows and as I have said to her before, an issue in relation to how much we can sensibly trespass on judicial discretion. In
	each and every case a bench of magistrates would have to have concluded that the exceptional hardship case was made out, such that they thought it appropriate not to disqualify in those cases. There will always be exceptional cases, but her argument is that those cases should, indeed, be exceptional; they should not be regular, and I have a good deal of sympathy for that view. The specific point around exceptional hardship claims—

Julie Hilling: Does the Minister therefore think that perhaps a stronger direction should be given to magistrates on what should be exceptional hardship?

Jeremy Wright: I would be wary of doing that, but we can look at how we ensure that magistrates are doing all necessary due diligence on the nature of past exceptional hardship claims, perhaps before other benches. That was the hon. Lady’s second point that I was just coming on to. There is something in that. We need to consider how to ensure that benches take the opportunity to look carefully at what has been said to their brethren in other cases involving the same defendant, who may be running the same argument on exceptional hardship multiple times and continually avoiding disqualification. We will need to look carefully at that.
	That does not mean that running the same argument cannot necessarily amount to exceptional hardship more than once—again, that is a matter for each bench to determine—but they should do so, as she says, with their eyes open and in possession of all the relevant facts. We will look at whether there are ways in which we can ensure that they do more to get those facts. However, it is not the case that they do not have access to those facts now. The DVLA already retains the information on whether an exceptional hardship claim has been made by the same defendant in a previous case. It is there to be looked at, but further inquiries may then be necessary to find out exactly what was said in the making of that exceptional hardship claim. We will take that away and look at it. As I have already said, there is a good case for including in the review the hon. Lady’s point about multiple points on a licence and the totting-up offences.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) made a number of points around the vulnerability of cyclists, with which, of course, I agree. We must always be conscious of that, not just in the Ministry of Justice but in other Departments too, as I know colleagues in the Department for Transport in particular are. He is right to say that this is not simply about sanctions, but also about changing behaviour. He will recognise that in the Ministry of Justice we are pretty much all about sanctions, so there is a limited amount that can be done by this Department, but certainly in conjunction with other Departments there may be a great deal more that can be done. He will understand, too, that the review will be into the penalties available to the judiciary under the criminal law. It will not, of course, sensibly be able to reach wider than that, although he will wish to take advantage of his opportunities to make submissions to it none the less.
	My hon. Friend will recognise that new clause 10 deals with the starting point for decisions on the appropriate tariff for a life sentence. We think it appropriate for the reasons that I set out earlier that the starting point for murders of police officers and prison officers should be
	a whole life tariff, but sentencing judges can move up or down from that starting point as they think fit, and that applies in both directions. If one starts with the murder of a police officer and believes for particular reasons that it is appropriate to go below a whole life tariff, the sentencing judge can do that, and will want to set out why they choose to do that. I anticipate, following this change, that that will be very much the exception, and that as a matter of course, those who are sentenced for murder of a police or prison officer in the performance of their duties should expect to receive a whole life tariff. That is the purpose of this change. But the reason I say that it operates in both directions is that if somebody were to be convicted of murder, not necessarily of a police or prison officer attracting a whole life tariff starting point but a lower starting point, that may still result in a whole life tariff if the judge thought it appropriate to revise that sentence upwards from the starting point. I hope that is helpful to my hon. Friend. With those remarks, again I invite the House to support the Government new clauses, and not the Opposition’s new clause.
	Question put and agreed to.
	New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22
	 — 
	Penalty for driving while disqualified

‘(1) In Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts) in the entry relating to the offence of obtaining licence, or driving, while disqualified, section 103(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Act 1988—
	(a) in column 3 leave out “6 months” and insert “12 months”;
	(b) in column 2 below “(c) On indictment, in Scotland”, insert “(d) On indictment, in England and Wales”; and
	(c) in column 3 below “(c) 12 months or a fine or both” insert “(d) 2 years or a fine or both”.
	(2) In relation to an offence committed before section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 comes into force, the reference to 12 months is to be read as reference to six months.
	(3) The amendment made by this section applies only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which it comes into force.’.
	Makes the offence of driving while disqualified triable either way, with a maximum penalty of 2 years’ imprisonment for conviction on indictment.
	—
	(Mr Slaughter.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.
	Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 196, Noes 291.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Schedule 2
	 — 
	‘Offences committed by disqualified drivers: further amendments

Road Traffic Act 1988 (c.52)
	1 (1) Section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers) is amended as follows.
	(2) Omit paragraph (b) (but not the “or” at the end).
	(3) In the heading, omit “, disqualified”.
	Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c.53)
	2 The Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 is amended as follows.
	3 (1) Section 24 (alternative verdicts: general) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (A2)—
	(a) after paragraph (b) insert—
	“(ba) an offence under section 3ZC of that Act (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers),
	(bb) an offence under section 3ZD of that Act (causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers),”.
	(3) In the table in subsection (1), at the appropriate place insert—
	
		
			 “Section 3ZC (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers) Section 103(1)(b) (driving while disqualified) 
			 Section 3ZD (causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers) Section 103(1)(b) (driving while disqualified)”. 
		
	
	4 In section 34(4)(a) (disqualification for certain offences), after sub-paragraph (iia) insert—
	(iib) an offence under section 3ZC of that Act (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers), or
	(iic) an offence under section 3ZD of that Act (causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers), or”.
	5 (1) Section 36(2) (disqualification until test is passed) is amended as follows.
	(2) At the end of paragraph (a) omit “or”.
	(3) For paragraph (b) substitute—
	“(b) an offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (causing death by dangerous driving),
	(c) an offence under section 1A of that Act (causing serious injury by dangerous driving),
	(d) an offence under section 2 of that Act (dangerous driving),
	(e) an offence under section 3ZC of that Act (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers), or
	(f) an offence under section 3ZD of that Act (causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers).”
	6 In section 45 (effect of endorsement of counterparts), for subsection (6) substitute—
	“(6) Where the offence was under one of the following sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the endorsement remains effective until four years have elapsed since the conviction—
	(a) section 1 (causing death by dangerous driving),
	(b) section 1A (causing serious injury by dangerous driving),
	(c) section 2 (dangerous driving),
	(d) section 3ZC (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers), or
	(e) section 3ZD (causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers).”
	7 In section 45A (effect of endorsement of driving records), for subsection (4) as substituted by paragraph 42 of Schedule 3 to the Road Safety Act 2006 (endorsement: all drivers), substitute—
	“(4) Where the offence was under one of the following sections of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the endorsement remains effective until four years have elapsed since the conviction—
	(a) section 1 (causing death by dangerous driving),
	(b) section 1A (causing serious injury by dangerous driving),
	(c) section 2 (dangerous driving),
	(d) section 3ZC (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers), or
	(e) section 3ZD (causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers).”
	8 (1) The table in Schedule 1 (offences to which sections 1, 6, 11 and 12(1) apply) is amended as follows.
	(2) In the entry relating to section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in the second column omit “, disqualified”.
	(3) After that entry insert—
	
		
			 “RTA section 3ZC Causing death by driving: disqualified drivers Section 11 of this Act. 
			 RTA section 3ZD Causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers Sections 11 and 12(1) of this Act.” 
		
	
	9 In the table in Part 1 of Schedule 2 (prosecution and punishment of offences under the Traffic Acts), in the entry relating to section 3ZB of the Road Traffic Act 1988, in column 2 omit “, disqualified”.
	Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (c.32)
	10 (1) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (application of duty to give notice to foreign authorities of driving disqualification of a non-UK resident) is amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (ca) omit “, disqualified”.
	(3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
	“(cb) section 3ZC (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers),
	(cc) section 3ZD (causing serious injury by driving: disqualified drivers),”.
	Criminal Justice Act 2003 (c.44)
	11 In Part 1 of Schedule 15 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (specified violent offences for the purposes of sentencing dangerous offenders), after paragraph 48 (offence under section 1 of the Road Traffic Act 1988) insert—
	48A An offence under section 3ZC of that Act (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers).”
	Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (c.25)
	12 (1) In paragraph 1(6) of Schedule 1 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (suspension of investigations where certain criminal charges may be brought), in the definition of “homicide offence”, paragraph (b) is amended as follows.
	(2) In sub-paragraph (iii) omit “, disqualified”.
	(3) After that sub-paragraph insert—
	(iiia) section 3ZC (causing death by driving: disqualified drivers);”.’.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	This Schedule contains amendments relating to the offences under sections 3ZC and 3ZD of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (inserted by amendment NC14). It includes provisions about alternative verdicts, retests and the period of endorsement.
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 10
	 — 
	Term of imprisonment for murder of a police or prison officer

‘(1) Schedule 21 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 (determination of minimum term in relation to mandatory life sentence) is amended as follows.
	(2) In paragraph 4(2) (cases for which a whole life order is the appropriate starting point), after paragraph (b) insert—
	(ba) the murder of a police officer or prison officer in the course of his or her duty,”.
	(3) In paragraph 5(2) (cases for which 30 years is the appropriate starting point), omit paragraph (a).
	(4) The amendments made by this section apply only in relation to an offence committed on or after the day on which they come into force.’.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	This amendment provides that the court should normally start by considering a whole life term when sentencing an offender for the murder of a police or prison officer in the course of his or her duty. Currently, the starting point in these cases is a minimum term of 30 years.
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11
	 — 
	Committal for sentence of young offenders convicted of certain serious offences

‘(1) The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 3B (committal for sentence on indication of guilty plea by child or young person), for subsection (1) substitute—
	“(1) This section applies where on the summary trial of an offence mentioned in section 91(1) of this Act a person aged under 18 is convicted of the offence.”
	(3) For the heading of that section substitute “Committal for sentence of young offenders on summary trial of certain serious offences”.
	(4) The amendment made by subsection (2) applies only if the person convicted of the offence first appeared in respect of the offence after the day on which the amendment comes into force.
	(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), a person first appears in respect of an offence when the person first appears or is brought before a magistrates’ court in the proceedings in which the person is charged with the offence.’.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	This amendment allows a magistrates’ court to commit a person under 18 for sentence to the Crown Court where the court has found 
	the person guilty of an offence mentioned in section 91(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. Currently the court can only do so following an early guilty plea.
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 29
	 — 
	Fixed term recalls

‘(1) Section 255A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection 4, insert—
	“(4A) A person is not suitable for automatic release if—
	(a) he is an extended sentence prisoner or a specified offence prisoner;
	(b) in a case where paragraph (a) does not apply, he was recalled under section 254 before the normal entitlement date (having been released before that date under section 246 or 248); or
	(c) in a case where neither of the proceeding paragraphs applies, he has, during the same term of imprisonment, already been released under section 255B(1)(b) or (2) or section 255C(2).’.—(Philip Davies.)
	Brought up, and read the First time.

Philip Davies: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	New clause 31—Tagged curfew on remand not to count towards time served—
	‘(1) The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1B)(c) of section 237, leave out “or section 240A”.
	(3) In the italic heading before section 240, after “custody”, leave out “or on bail subject to certain types of condition”.
	(4) Leave out section 240A.’.
	New clause 37—Open prisons: deportees—
	‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be moved to a Category D prison.’.
	New clause 38—Resettlement licence: deportees—
	‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.’.
	New clause 39—Open prisons: murderers—
	‘No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be moved to a Category D prison.’.
	New clause 40—Resettlement licence: murderers—
	‘No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be eligible for resettlement licence.’.
	New clause 41—Open prisons: serious offenders—
	‘No prisoner serving a sentence for an indictable only offence can be moved to a Category D prison.’.
	New clause 42—Open prisons: victims—
	‘No prisoner serving a life sentence can be moved to a Category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered by the Secretary of State for Justice.’.
	New clause 2—Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.—
	‘(1) The Sexual Offences Act 2003 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 15(1)(a) (meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.) for “two”, substitute “one”.’.
	At present, someone is only considered to be committing an offence if they contact the child twice and arrange to meet them or travel to meet them with the intention of committing a sexual offence. This new Clause would mean that the perpetrator would only have to make contact once.
	New clause 3—Offence of abduction of child by other persons—
	‘(1) The Child Abduction Act 1984 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 2(1) (offence of abduction of child by other person) for “sixteen”, substitute “eighteen”.’.
	At present, there is a disparity between the ages that children must be to be considered to be abducted depending on whether they are in the care system or not. This new Clause would rectify this disparity and set a consistent age of under 18.
	New clause 15—Aggravated offences against members of the armed forces—
	‘(1) Part 12 (Sentencing) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, is amended as follows.
	(2) At the end of section 146, insert—
	“147 Increase in sentences for aggravation related to membership of the Armed Forces
	(1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).
	(2) Those circumstances are—
	(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim being a former or serving member (or presumed former or serving member) of the armed forces or army reserve; and
	(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons who are former or serving members of the armed forces.
	(3) The court—
	(a) must treat the fact that the offence was committed in any of those circumstances as an aggravating factor; and
	(b) must state in open court that the offence was committed in such circumstances.
	(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
	(5) In this section “armed forces” means Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, both regular and reserve.’.
	Amendment 20,in clause 18, page17,line29, leave out from ‘portrays’ to end of line 42 and insert
	‘sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent or any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent’.

Philip Davies: New clause 29 stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall). I appreciate that with this group of amendments time is of the essence, so I will try to be as snappy as possible. I usually try to accommodate interventions, but I hope that Members will be mindful of the fact that there are amendments in the group that have been tabled by others. In the interests of time, and in order to allow everyone a fair lick of the sauce bottle, I will try to refrain from speaking to the amendments that do not stand in my name, even though there are things that I would like to say about them if time allowed.
	New clause 29 would reverse the changes made in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 in relation to those who are eligible to be recalled to prison for just 28 days for breaching their licence. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to enable fixed-term recalls in the first place—one of the many shameful
	things done in the law and order field by the previous Labour Government. However, the 2012 Act further amended the 2003 Act to extend the use of fixed-term recalls to previously denied prisoners. That is another example of the previous Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), being even more lax on law and order issues than the previous Labour Government. Many of us might have thought that that would be rather hard to achieve, but he managed it in that particular field.
	Most people believe that when someone is let out of prison early, whether it be halfway through their sentence, a quarter of the way through on home detention curfew, or at some other point before they should be let out, if they reoffend during that time or breach their licence conditions, they should go back to prison to serve the rest of their original sentence—at the very least; one might even argue for sending them to prison for longer. Unfortunately, this is not only not always the case; it is often not the case, or may even never be the case at all.
	The overwhelming majority of the public believe that offenders should serve the whole of the sentence they were given in the first place. Eighty-two per cent. of those asked about this in a survey carried out by Lord Ashcroft thought that prisoners should serve the full prison sentence handed down by the courts.

Jeremy Wright: I have a nasty feeling that my hon. Friend is not going to welcome much in the Bill, but may I ask him at least to welcome one thing? He will have noticed, I am sure, that we propose to increase the penalties for those who fail to comply with their licence. Does he at least accept that that is a good idea?

Philip Davies: I absolutely accept that the current Lord Chancellor, with the help of my hon. Friend the Minister, is doing his very best to try to undo lots of the mistakes made by his predecessors; I am the first to acknowledge that. My contention is that the Government are not going anywhere near far enough in meeting the needs and expectations of the general public. Yes, of course they are making small steps in the right direction, but they are far too small and I would like them to go further.

Andrew Percy: May I reassure my hon. Friend about the views of the public? I spend my weekends out on the doorsteps talking to people in Brigg and Goole, and the one thing they tell me about law and order is that they expect that people who go to prison should serve their full term. The idea that somebody can breach their licence and then in effect have a 28-day all-inclusive holiday is completely and utterly outrageous. I entirely concur with what he is saying, and so do the people of Brigg and Goole.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and, of course, to the people of Brigg and Goole who are so ably represented by him in Parliament. He is absolutely right. Most people think that when somebody is sent to prison for whatever length of time the court hands down, they should be there for that period of time. It beggars belief that even when they are released
	from prison and commit another offence, they do not go back for the original sentence that was handed down.
	There is no licence period for offenders serving less than one year in prison, and that covers about 60% of the prison population at any one time. Many of the remaining prisoners will be released on licence halfway through their sentence. Fixed-term recalls were introduced in 2008 to reduce the pressure on prison places. It was not done because it was the right thing to do, but because the previous Government got completely overwhelmed on the matter of prison places. Unfortunately, not much appears to be known by the public, nor—dare I say it?—by many colleagues in this House about how the system of fixed-term recalls works. A fixed-term recall occurs where the offender breaches their licence and is returned to prison for a mere 28 days, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) said—not for the rest of the prison term they were originally given, not even for most of it, but for just 28 days.
	When fixed-term recalls were introduced, they excluded certain offenders. However, in his bid to reduce the prison population still further, the former Lord Chancellor, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe, relaxed the eligibility criteria by way of a change in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I always had my doubts about the fact that the punishment of offenders was mentioned in the title of that Act, because it seemed to do anything but punish offenders, and I was right to be concerned. As of 3 December 2012, fixed-term recalls were made available to previously denied prisoners. These were offenders serving a sentence for certain violent or sexual offences, those subject to a home detention curfew—that is, serving some of their prison sentence at home—and, most shockingly, those who had previously been given a fixed-term recall for breaching their licence within the same original prison sentence. I suspect that not many people realise that, and they certainly will not like it when they do.
	One unbelievable thing that I recently found out is that in the nine months from January to September last year, 785 of the prisoners serving sentences of one year or more who had been released on licence before the end of their sentence were not only recalled to serve just 28 days for breaching their licence once, and then released, but subsequently recalled to serve another 28-day spell and then released again before the end of their original prison sentence. In nine months, 785 of the most serious offenders in our prisons were released from prison having breached their licence, returned to prison for 28 days, released again, and then, for a further breach of their licence, returned to prison for just 28 days and then released again. You couldn’t make it up, Madam Deputy Speaker. This is a complete failure of policy that is completely indefensible and unjustifiable. I am not easily shocked when it comes to any matters relating to justice, but this has to be one of the most unbelievable policy decisions of all time, and I doubt there is much support for it among the general public. I would love to hear the Howard League for Penal Reform, otherwise known as the prisoner’s friend, and other do-gooding organisations justify this kind of approach.
	In answer to one of my recent parliamentary questions about the Bill, my hon. Friend the Minister said:
	“Fixed term recalls will continue to be used in low-risk cases where a short period back in custody is sufficient to deal with the breach and the offender can then safely be re-released to continue with their rehabilitation under licensed supervision in the community.”—[Official Report, 3 March 2014; Vol. 576, c. 641W.]
	My new clause would remove those who have committed serious offences from eligibility for the 28-day recall, as well as those who have already been given a chance on a 28-day recall and gone on to breach their licence conditions again. If what the Minister says is really the case, surely he and the Lord Chancellor, who is, I believe, much more in tune with public opinion and more on the side of the victim than the criminal—certainly compared with his predecessor—will do something to rectify this appalling state of affairs and support my new clause. Unless he can offer some sensible measures to address these points, I intend to press it to a vote.
	New clause 31 proposes that time spent on tagged curfew would not count as time on remand. The Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 amended the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to allow periods of time spent on tagged curfew, on bail, to count as credit towards any eventual custodial sentence. As I said on Second Reading of this Bill, I want an end to the ridiculous position whereby time spent on tagged curfew is credited as though it were time spent on remand in prison. The new clause would remove that entitlement. Currently, when someone is on bail on an electronically tagged curfew from, say, 11 pm until 8 am, and they then receive a custodial sentence, the amount of time they have to serve in custody is reduced by half a day for each nine hours or more spent on the curfew beforehand. I have never understood the maths of it. If nine hours is spent on a curfew, how does that equate to half a day in prison, even if the two things were comparable, which, in my view, they are not? I appreciate that some people will have had curfews longer than nine hours, but some of those who had nine-hour curfews will still be getting the benefit of this credit. The credit also inevitably means that some people avoid prison altogether. If they have been on a curfew for a certain period of time and then receive a custodial sentence of a certain length, they will never see the inside of a prison cell despite the court having deemed that only a custodial sentence was appropriate for the crime they committed.
	I can do no better than repeat what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier) said as shadow Minister in 2008 when this proposal was first being made by the previous Labour Government:
	“One of the greatest concerns of the public is that the current system leads to dishonesty in sentencing. People do not seem to understand that when a person is sentenced to two years in prison, that actually means that he will be in custody only for one year. It provides yet another example of how the Government, in order to overcome the difficulties of prison overcrowding, are guilty of promoting an untruth.”
	He went on to say that a curfew
	“cannot be considered the equivalent of having spent time in prison awaiting sentence, but the new clause directs the court to take all that time—described as ‘the credit period’—into account in reducing the custodial sentence. I am afraid that the public will find that rather difficult to understand.”
	He went on to say, as I quoted on Second Reading:
	“If someone has committed an offence that crosses the custody threshold—an offence that is serious enough to warrant a custodial sentence—it will cause a great deal of scepticism, undermine
	public confidence in the justice system and make the Government look increasingly ridiculous if the court is then required to say, ‘By the way, all the time that you have spent at home in bed is time that can be taken away from your custodial sentence.’”—[ Official Report , 9 January 2008; Vol. 470, c. 369.]
	As it happens, back in 2008 the Conservative party voted against the then Government introducing this particular measure. Indeed, the Minister voted against it when in opposition. Has he changed his mind about this ridiculous system—if that is the case, he can tell us why—or does he still think it is ridiculous even though he does not accept my new clause? I would be extremely grateful if he could tell us why he intends to defend in this Parliament something that he thought was wrong and voted against in the last Parliament. We can only conclude that he has somehow changed his mind, but I am not entirely sure what caused that to happen.
	My other new clauses, 37 to 42, all relate to open prisons and can be taken together. I am sure it will not have escaped anybody’s notice that open prisons have been a hot topic in the past week or two, with the absconding of the “skull cracker” from an open prison. The prison authorities might have thought there was a clue in his name before they decided to release him, but it appears that that was beyond them. This is a multiple armed robber who was serving 13 life sentences and had absconded from prison before—twice, I believe—but who somehow, unbelievably, found himself in an open prison and being released on temporary licence.
	I had been looking at this issue for some time before the “skull cracker” case, and the more I learn about it, the more I despair. The actual facts regarding open prisons and the sorts of people being let out on day or night release are shocking. People say that open prisons are an essential part of people’s rehabilitation and that, just before they are released and have gone through all their rehabilitation, it means they can gradually work their way back into the local community. We know that that is clearly not true, because of the police’s reaction when the “skull cracker” escaped from prison. If all of this guff about rehabilitation of people in open prisons were true, when the “skull cracker” escaped from prison the police would have told the public, “Don’t worry about it, because this man was rehabilitated. He was going to be released from prison very soon anyway, so he is of no danger to the public.” Of course, the police did not say that; they said, “This man is immensely dangerous and must not be approached at any price.”
	Therefore, we know for a fact that the argument that people in open prisons who are coming to the end of their sentence are being rehabilitated is a load of old nonsense dreamt up by the do-gooders. I can see from the facial expressions of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) that the do-gooders are ably represented, as usual. He, along with the Howard League for Penal Reform, is the criminal and prisoner’s friend.

Julian Huppert: I hope the hon. Gentleman puts his new clauses to the vote so we can see how much of the House rejects what he is saying. Does he really not care about the research done by a huge number of organisations which shows that reoffending rates among those released from open prisons are far lower than the rates for those who are released from closed prisons? Rather than give his own personal opinions, surely the hon. Gentleman would like to see less reoffending and, hence, fewer victims of future crimes.

Philip Davies: I suggest the hon. Gentleman goes to speak to the people at the building society who were the victims of the armed robbery by the “skull cracker.” The hon. Gentleman seems to take comfort from people in a Westminster bubble—people who need to get out more—agreeing with him. I am concerned not about whether he agrees with me, but about what the general public think and whether they have confidence in the criminal justice system. He is, of course, a typical arrogant type who thinks that he knows better than the general public about everything. All I can suggest is that he knocks on a few doors in his constituency and asks people what they actually think about the criminal justice system. He may be shocked. It would be better for him not to stick to the people in the ivory towers in his constituency; he should try to speak to people on estates and those who buy their own homes. He might be surprised by what he finds out.
	My new clauses 37 states:
	“No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be moved to a Category D prison.”
	New clause 38 states:
	“No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.”

Andrew Percy: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way again. On deportation, surely the debate about whether an open prison is key to rehabilitation is completely irrelevant, because these people will not be released back into society in the United Kingdom. He should, therefore, enjoy the support even of those who argue that open prisons are part of rehabilitation, because the people affected will leave the United Kingdom. The argument is completely baseless.

Philip Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure we are all excited at the prospect of hearing what the hon. Member for Cambridge will have to say about these particular two new clauses and whether he thinks it is suitable for people who are about to be deported to be moved into open prisons and released on temporary licence so that they can walk out willy-nilly. Knowing him as I do, I am sure he thinks it is quite right for them to be moved to open prisons and released on temporary licence. We await his comments with baited breath. If he were to agree with me, there is no doubt whatsoever that it would be a red letter day. At that point, I think I would be able to claim that my new clause had the support of the House.
	The clue to my new clauses is in the title: if someone is liable for deportation following an offence, I do not understand what grounds there can possibly be for releasing them on resettlement licence. The whole justification for resettlement day and night release is that it is supposed to help prisoners reintegrate into the area by re-establishing links with family and the local community. To be honest, I am not a fan of that at the best of times—given that many offenders spend so little of their sentence in prison anyway, I cannot believe that so many of them are not in prison when we think they are—but giving a resettlement licence to someone liable to be deported is utter madness. I cannot for one second understand the logic of it and I would be amazed if anybody could find any support for the idea from any quarter.
	New clause 38 would make those liable for deportation ineligible for resettlement licence, and new clause 37 would ensure they were not allowed to be moved to open prisons. I cannot believe that I even needed to table these new clauses—I would have thought they were basic common sense—but I believe this change is essential to remove the much greater risk of these offenders absconding, knowing that they are likely to be deported at the end of their sentence in any event.
	New clause 39 states:
	“No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be moved to a Category D prison.”
	New clause 40 states:
	“No prisoner serving a sentence for murder can be eligible for resettlement licence.”
	There is nothing much more serious than dealing with the case of someone who has been murdered. The individuals who have committed such crimes have shown that they are capable of ending someone’s life, and there has to be a risk that they will do it again. It is all well and good saying that these people should be rehabilitated, but the risk is obviously at the highest possible end of the scale.
	According to replies to further parliamentary questions, I was told that two murderers are still on the run, having absconded from open prison a few years ago, and that 106 offenders serving sentences for murder have absconded in less than 10 years. Those are not small numbers. As far as I am concerned, any murderer who absconds from our prison estate is one too many. It is absolutely disgraceful that 106 murderers have absconded from our prisons in 10 years. New clauses 39 and 40 would help to protect the public, who should not be put at risk in this way.
	There are real-life, tragic examples of the risk these murderers pose. One of those terrible cases happened when Ian McLoughlin was on day release following a murder conviction, which in turn followed a conviction for manslaughter. He murdered Graham Buck, who had gone to help his neighbour. The offence was apparently committed on his first day on day release from prison after 21 years in custody. One day is all it takes. I believe that putting murderers in open prisons and giving them day release is playing with fire unnecessarily and creating unnecessary additional victims of crime. Such tragic cases should never have happened, and we need to make sure that they never happen again. I therefore hope that colleagues will support the new clauses.
	New clause 41 would deny a prisoner serving a sentence for an indictable only offence from being moved to a category D open prison. According to an answer on 1 May to one of my parliamentary questions, there were more than 4,000 offenders in open prisons at the end of last year, including 1,227 who were in for violence against the person offences, 215 for sexual offences, 505 for robbery, 202 for burglary and 1,115 for drug offences. According to other answers, there are 643 life-sentence prisoners in open prisons, as well as 599 other prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for public protection. These are not the type of offenders I was expecting to find in open prisons. I believe that most of the public think that open prisons are for people like Lester Piggott, not people serving 13 life sentences.
	Not only are such people in open prisons, but they are allowed to go out by being released on temporary licence. Some 611 prisoners serving life sentences were granted release on temporary licence in the last year for which figures are available, and 1,043 serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were granted release on temporary licence. If people serving indeterminate sentences for public protection were fit to be released from prison, they would have been released. That is the whole point of indeterminate sentences. The fact that they are still in prison means that, by definition, they are not fit to be released. I am at a loss to understand how those who have committed the most serious offences—those which justify a so-called life sentence—are allowed to move to open prisons in such numbers.
	I also struggle with the basic concept that someone deemed too dangerous for release, in serving a sentence for public protection, is actually released on temporary licence. New clause 41 would ensure that no one serving the most serious sentences—for murder, attempted murder, manslaughter, section 18 wounding, conspiracy, robbery, rape, aggravated burglary, kidnapping, riot, blackmail and arson—could be moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence.
	Finally, new clause 42 would mean that no prisoner
	“serving a life sentence can be moved to a Category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered by the Secretary of State for Justice.”
	Victims’ rights should be at the heart of our criminal justice system. A victim can be the person directly involved or the affected family. It is one thing to be a victim of a serious crime and it is another to hear the often far too low sentence handed down to the perpetrator, but it is an absolute outrage for the victim and their family to learn that the person has been released early, or is seen to have an easy life in an open prison or by being released on temporary licence.
	One of the most stark examples is that of offenders who are transferred to open prisons, which must be very upsetting and concerning for victims in many cases. It is absolutely right that before considering any application for people to be moved to an open prison, particularly for those who have committed the most serious offence, victims and their families should have a formal input into, and their objections or comments should be heard as part of, the process of deciding whether or not that person should be moved.
	I hear Members talking time and again about how they think that victims should be at the heart of the criminal justice system, that their rights should be paramount and that their views should be more carefully considered by the criminal justice system and the courts. This is an opportunity for them not just to come here and spout about the rights of victims and their families, but to do something about it by allowing victims and their families to play a formal part in the decision-making process. New clause 42 would ensure that victims’ voices are heard, with decisions taking into account what the victim has to say as well as the offender’s impact on them and their family.
	I genuinely do not understand—I really do not—why anybody would object to this particular new clause. I hope that the Minister will say that he will support it and that the shadow Minister will also do so, so that we can send out a message from this House, on a cross-party basis, that we do not just say that we want victims to be
	at the heart of the criminal justice system, but have actually delivered something meaningful that will make an awful lot of difference to how victims feel about the criminal justice system.
	I look forward to hearing other hon. Members’ views. I have no doubt that my new clauses command the widespread support of members of the public, and I would like to think that they also command an awful lot of support in this House.

Dan Jarvis: I will speak principally to new clause 15, which is in my name and those of the shadow Defence Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), and my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for North Durham (Mr Jones). Before I do so, let me comment briefly on the other new clauses in this group.
	The Minister will of course address the impact on the Bill of new clauses 29, 31 and 37 to 42, which were tabled by the hon. Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), but I think that there is agreement across this House that no one who poses a serious threat to the public should be in an open prison. The hon. Member for Shipley has just reminded us of the serious and much-publicised case of a prisoner absconding in recent days. Thankfully, he is now back in custody, but Ministers must explain why he was ever allowed to be in an open prison or granted release on temporary licence in the first place.
	I want to make three points on new clauses 29, 31 and 37 to 42. First, we should remain mindful of the role that open prisons have played in our criminal justice system going back nearly 80 years. Except for a small proportion of offenders on whole-life tariffs, all prisoners will return to civilian life at some point, and category D prisons can help that process if they are used in the right way. The Prison Governors Association pointed out last week:
	“The use of open conditions is an important factor for effective resettlement. Research suggests that reoffending rates among those released from open conditions are far lower compared to those released from closed prisons.”
	Secondly, the point is to ensure that risks are properly managed so that public safety is not compromised, because this is even more of an issue today than it was four years ago. As shown by a written answer last month to the shadow Justice Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), the use of release on temporary licence has jumped by 23% since 2010. Over the same period, the Government have presided over a 57% rise in breaches in relation to those released on temporary licence. Those breaches may well be serious breaches or involve prisoners, such as Mr Wheatley, who have committed serious and violent crimes. It is therefore important that the public should receive assurances.
	Thirdly, we should remember that no prisoner can be moved to open conditions without a recommendation from the Parole Board or the National Offender Management Service. Ministers must therefore answer this question: what support are they giving the Parole Board to ensure that it has proper resources to give all cases the careful consideration they need and deserve? The Government have accepted that the Bill will result in an extra 1,100 Parole Board hearings, but the Parole
	Board is already under severe strain. Nearly one in five staff have been cut since the last election, but although staff numbers are falling, its work load is rising. There is already a significant backlog of outstanding cases, and a recent Supreme Court ruling means that the number of oral hearings the Parole Board will have to hold is set to increase from about 4,500 per year to as many as 14,000 per year.
	With that in mind, I am cautious about the blanket approach proposed by the hon. Member for Shipley, but Ministers need to assure the public that resources are in place to ensure that all decisions on moving prisoners to open conditions are properly scrutinised.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman is about to move on, but I have not heard him mention new clause 42, which would give victims the right to have their say before a serious offender was moved to an open prison. Given that his party is talking about a victims’ law, can I take it as read that his party supports my new clause? If not, why not?

Dan Jarvis: I am grateful for that intervention. The hon. Gentleman can take it as read that we will look carefully at the detail of his proposal, as we always seek to do. We are consulting on these matters. The Labour party has appointed Sir Keir Starmer, QC to look carefully at these matters and he will report in due course.
	I will move on to new clauses 2 and 3.

Philip Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Dan Jarvis: I will not give way again, because I want to move on to new clauses 2 and 3.
	I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on tabling the new clauses and on the campaign the she has led on tackling child exploitation. Sexual grooming and child abduction are difficult subjects to talk about in our society, but we must remain vigilant and do all that we can to protect children and correct anomalies in our laws. As a father of three, I applaud the parliamentary inquiry that she led with Barnardo’s. There has been much support for her new clauses from police forces and leading children’s charities. That is reflected in the fact that the proposals have the backing of Members from all parts of the House. I therefore hope that the Government will give the new clauses proper consideration. The Minister said that he was sympathetic to them in Committee, so I look forward to hearing what he has to say tonight.
	Amendment 20 was tabled by my hon. Friends the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and for Hammersmith and myself. There is agreement on both sides of the House about the need to tackle extreme forms of pornography. In recent months, we have heard warnings from the Children’s Commissioner about how violent pornography is distorting our children’s understanding of sexual relationships, including the normalisation of sexual violence in gangs. Research by Rape Crisis South London has shown that extreme
	material that depicts and glorifies rape is readily available online. We therefore welcome the steps that are being taken by the Government in the Bill.
	Our amendment is designed to clarify the proposals to reflect a promise that the Prime Minister made last summer. He pledged, with regard to extreme pornography,
	“to make sure that the same rules apply online as they do offline.”
	Our concern is that the Bill will fall short of that. We agree that a careful balance needs to be struck so that the standard for criminalising possession is very high and people’s private sexual behaviour is respected. We think, however, that the legislation would be improved by replacing the Government’s description of rape in proposed new subsection (7A) with the text used by the British Board of Film Classification—a well-established test that is already used to judge offline content.
	Amendment 20 would improve the law in two ways. First, it would make it clear that the ban on possessing rape pornography extends to all depictions of rape, even if they are staged. Portrayals of actual rapes are very rare. The content that has been identified by Rape Crisis South London and the Children’s Commissioner is primarily commercial pornography with high production values, poor acting and staged violence. It is not clear whether, under the Bill, that would be deemed realistic enough to secure a prosecution. It would certainly be banned offline, which is what the Prime Minister’s promise was based on. Secondly, the amendment would ensure that content was banned if it showed rape, but not the act of penetration. I hope that the Minister will reflect on both those points and consider accepting our amendment. It would not only implement the Prime Minister’s promise, but make it clear that extreme pornography that depicts rape and glorifies sexual violence should not be permitted in our society.
	Before I go into the merits of new clause 15, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), who has campaigned so hard on this policy. It is important to recognise that the overwhelming majority of the British public are very proud of our armed forces and hold them in very high regard. We see that right across our country. Just a glance at the latest Ministry of Defence reputation survey shows that the armed forces have a favourability rating of about 85%. That is testimony not just to the way in which those in uniform serve us in theatres abroad, but to the contribution they make to our local communities.
	The sad truth, however, is that not all men and women who serve our country receive such a warm welcome when they return from operational duty. I will give three brief examples. The first case was reported by BBC Radio 5 Live and involved a soldier called Lee. He was returning to his home in Bolton from a three-month tour in Afghanistan, when he was set upon by a group of drunken thugs. When the police caught up with them, the attackers said they wanted to prove “how hard they were” by attacking a soldier.
	The second example relates to the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games—an event that would not have been possible without the help of our armed forces to make it safe and secure. There were reports of troops being advised to travel together in groups after a number of soldiers were
	“attacked, verbally abused and harassed”.
	In one particularly nasty case, an off-duty soldier was badly beaten by four men not far from Tower Hill tube station, after the attackers noticed that he was carrying a military bag.
	Thirdly, let me briefly tell the story of an 18-year-old called Alexander, who was training to be a soldier in the Coldstream Guards. He was assaulted in August last year, when he was jumped by a gang of eight attackers as he walked through an underpass near his home in Exeter. When they saw that he was wearing his military backpack, they stopped him and asked whether he was in the forces. The gang surrounded him, kicked him to the ground and tried to attack him with a screwdriver. Alex later told his local newspaper:
	“They kept shouting Lee Rigby—like they wanted to re-create what happened.”
	I am sure that the whole House will agree that those cases are appalling, abhorrent and completely unacceptable. Unfortunately, they are far from unusual. I draw the House’s attention to the armed forces and society survey that was carried out by Lord Ashcroft, with the assistance of the Ministry of Defence. The study contacted 9,000 serving personnel across all three branches of the armed forces, and is acknowledged to be the most detailed and in-depth study in the area. The survey contains a number of startling statistics. It found that more than 20% of service personnel had suffered verbal abuse in the previous five years and that about one in 20 had been the victim of violence or attempted violence.
	Any attack that is motivated by hate for our armed services is one too many. Our service personnel do not ask for special treatment, but they rightly expect not to be discriminated against because of what they do for our country. That is why we are proposing action through new clause 15. It would make physical or verbal attacks against members of our armed forces an aggravated offence, when the prosecution can establish that a person’s service in the armed forces was a motive for the assault. It is a small change, but one that would send a strong signal that we will not tolerate such attacks as a society. It builds on existing laws that cover assault that is motivated by other characteristics. I hope that the Minister will give it proper consideration and support it today.
	I am aware that the Government have expressed two clear reservations with the proposal. Let me deal with them both. The first argument is that the existing laws are adequate. Indeed, the veterans Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), told the House earlier this year that
	“the sentencing guidelines make it clear that if somebody is assaulted by virtue of their being in the armed forces, that is clearly an aggravating feature”—[Official Report, 17 March 2014; Vol. 577, c. 545.]
	That sounds clear, but we do not believe that it is that straightforward in practice. The current sentencing guidelines for assault do not include any specific references to members of the armed forces. They say that it will be an aggravating factor if an offence is committed
	“against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public”.
	It is not clear whether that definition would always include members of the Royal Navy, the Army or the Royal Air Force, nor whether it extends to when they are off duty, which is when many such assaults take place. Amending the law so that the armed forces are specifically mentioned would bring much greater clarity.
	The second argument was made by the Minister in Committee who noted:
	“The current provisions deal with hostility on the grounds of race, religion, disability and sexual orientation, all personal characteristics that are beyond a person’s immediate control. Hostility on those grounds makes the offence particularly harmful, both to vulnerable individuals and to communities… However, hostility based on occupation is of a different kind.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice and Courts Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2014; c. 518.]
	I have three points for the Minister to consider. First, I understand the distinction that has been made, but what a person chooses to do with their live can become every bit as much a part of their identity as who they are or where they come from. That is especially the case for people who dedicate their lives to serving our country across the world. Secondly, I do not think that an attack on a young soldier such as Alexander, because of the uniform he was wearing, is any less harmful to our society than when people are assaulted because of who they worship or the colour of their skin. All our communities hold close connections to the men and women who put their lives on the line for us, and any hateful attack on that can be just as damaging to the bonds of our society as an attack motivated by characteristics already protected in law.
	Thirdly, the Minister will know that offences are already in place that specifically cover assaults against people in certain occupations: police constables, prison workers, immigration officers and emergency workers in Scotland. Surely our armed forces deserve the same recognition. That is why my right hon. Friends the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Defence Secretary have committed the next Labour Government to taking action on this matter. We will introduce an armed forces Bill in our first Queen’s Speech, tackling the issue of the assaults that we are debating today and outlawing other forms of discrimination against our service personnel. The Opposition have pledged to do that next year, but Ministers have an opportunity to make a head start and take action now.
	I urge Members across the House to support new clause 15 today. Our men and women in the Navy, Army and Royal Air Force serve us with dignity and bravery, and in this important year of remembrance, as we reflect on those who have made sacrifices for us in conflicts past and those who continue to serve us today, it is our duty to ensure that they are treated with dignity in return.

James Paice: I do not want to do permanent damage to the reputation of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but he will be surprised to know that I agreed with a large amount of what he said—that will come as a bit of a shock to him.
	I rise mainly to speak to new clauses 2 and 3, although I am in an invidious position, because the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), in whose name they stand, has not yet spoken to them, and I do not wish to detract from her remarks or steal her thunder. I entirely support the comments by the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) about the work that she has done. I served on the panel that looked into child sexual exploitation, and I found it an illuminating and at times emotional experience, but it was very rewarding. We listened to young people who had been exploited, and
	to those who work in the legal system or courts, such as judges, as well as to the police who have to deal with these issues day in, day out.
	I particularly support new clause 2. I do not wish to go into it in detail, because the hon. Member for Rotherham should have the privilege of doing that herself, but the fundamental point of reducing the number of grooming offences from two to one is something with which most people would agree. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to the new clause, and even if they cannot accept it tonight I like to think that this will be a significant step towards introducing it.
	Sadly, we are now all too familiar—partly from the various cases following Operation Yewtree, but from many other cases too—with the fact that child exploitation by adults appears to be far too common an activity. It is something that we in this House should all condemn, as I know we do, and we need to be able to stop it wherever possible. It seemed clear from the work of the panel and the evidence that we were given, that reducing from two to one the number of occasions that someone can contact children with a view to exploitation is perfectly sensible and reasonable, and—most importantly—could lead to a reduction in the number of victims. I strongly support new clause 2.
	I understand that the Government will have a little more difficulty accepting new clause 3, because it has probably been drafted a little more widely than had been intended, and would create offences that perhaps were not intended. Nevertheless, I hope that the Government will take on board the key point behind the new clause, which is to create equality between the treatment of children in care and of those not in care. It seemed to the panel that although there is undoubtedly evidence that children in care are particularly prone to exploitation—they are more vulnerable; that is a self-evident consequence of being in care—there are countless examples of children who are not in care, and we heard from a number of them. Those children may not be very well parented—if I dare use that awful word—but they are not in care. They are also vulnerable and open to exploitation, and it seems odd that the age limit for those children should be lower than for those in care.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Minister will explain to the House why there are other issues with the new clause, but perhaps when he responds to the debate he will go as far as to say that he fully understands my point, which is about the discrepancy between children in care and those not in care. If it is possible to draft the new clause a little more narrowly to address that point, I hope he will indicate sympathy with that, so that it might find acceptance from the Government in another place. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. Obviously, like other Members I have views on some of the other amendments, but I wanted to speak particularly to new clauses 2 and 3 and to add my congratulations to those paid to the hon. Member for Rotherham.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. This debate must end by 8.30 pm, and the Minister needs to respond to all the questions and proposals put to him. It should be possible to get every Member in, and of course the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip
	Davies) will get a few minutes at the end of the debate if he wishes to respond. May I ask each Member to aim to speak for about eight minutes, which will leave time for the Minister? Obviously, it is not compulsory to speak for eight minutes—it is possible to speak for less time, but I would prefer no longer so as to ensure that everybody gets in.

Sarah Champion: I thank the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) for his support today and on the panel, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) for the support and guidance that he has given me throughout this process. This is very much an issue on which the House can come together, and it has been heartening to see that when it comes to the protection of children, people think on more a logical and protection-based basis than a political one.
	New clauses 2 and 3 are the result of a cross-party inquiry into child sexual exploitation that I led with Barnardo’s. We discussed the new clauses in Committee, and I appreciate the careful consideration that the Minister gave them then as well as subsequently, and I hope that that translates into a commitment.
	New clause 2 would amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 as recommended by the inquiry so that the police are better able to prevent young people from being groomed. At present, someone is considered to have committed a grooming offence under section 15 of the Act if they contact the child twice and arrange to meet them, or travel to meet them with the intention of committing a sexual offence. My new clause would mean that the perpetrator would have to make contact only once, although the other requirements of the offence would obviously still remain. During the legal and the police oral evidence sessions, advocates and the police reported that the current legislation is too weak, and that making the grooming offence easier to use would make it a good prevention tool. As one legal professional stated,
	“there is a lot to prove”
	when trying to get successful prosecutions using current legislation.
	In many cases, there have been multiple instances of contact between the perpetrator and the victim, but proving that can be difficult for the police. There was unanimous support for this change in the inquiry’s oral evidence sessions, specifically from senior police officers. Indeed, it seems clear that if a child is travelling across the country to meet an adult, or vice versa, and that adult has demonstrated the intent to commit a sexual offence, it is completely unnecessary to require them to make contact with the child at least twice.
	Two years after the UK Sexual Offences Act 2003, the Scottish Parliament considered recommendations and adopted legislation on sexual grooming. Prior to making a decision, the Scottish Parliament heard from a number of witnesses. Several respondents questioned the need for adults to have met, or communicated with, a child on at least two earlier occasions. The Association of Directors of Social Work considered that to be prohibitive, as a meeting can be set up with just one communication. The Scottish Children’s Reporter Administration recommended revising the requirement
	to one prior communication to more accurately reflect the reality of some children’s vulnerability and perpetrators’ skills in exploiting it. The Law Society’s written submission questioned why there was a necessity for the accused to have met or communicated with a child on at least two earlier occasions. It recommended that the reference to two earlier occasions should be deleted from the offence provision. In oral evidence, the Law Society witnesses confirmed their belief that there needed to be only one communication.
	In oral evidence, the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland suggested that more than one contact may often be made in the grooming of children for sexual abuse, but that
	“If contact had been made on a single occasion and the circumstances and other information that was available to us suggested that the contact was illegitimate it would not be helpful if we were required to wait until another contact had been made or the person had travelled with the intention of meeting the child and for more evidence that the meeting was likely to lead to sexual abuse, before we could intervene.”
	In his evidence, James Chalmers also questioned the requirement for two previous communications:
	“One lengthy internet conversation could last hours or the best part of a day and could be much more significant than two short conversations. That is why I have my doubts about the limitation of requiring two previous meetings or communications. I am not sure that that provision serves any useful purpose.”
	Dr Rachel O’Connell, director of research at the cyberspace research unit at the University of Central Lancashire, gave evidence to the Committee that, in her experience, grooming can take place over a period of many months, but that in at least one case in Wigan, a girl went to a meeting with a paedophile after only a few online conversations during one day. In its submission to the Committee, the National Hi-Tech Crime Unit of Scotland stated:
	“There is no evidence to suggest that a paedophile will not carry out the grooming process during the first communication and arrange to meet up with a child. This is no doubt the case in many instances. The aim of the new legislation is the protection of children and this loophole may well be one that the paedophile would utilise to avoid prosecution.”
	I understand that the requirement for prior communication on two occasions was probably initially put in place to demonstrate clearly the intent to commit a crime. From a police point of view, however, and especially that of the child, this is at best an unnecessary burden and at worse will lead to a child being abused before the police can act. The Scottish committee recognised this concern, but considered that it is the content and the context of communications that are key to proving the offence, rather than the number of communications. There is a clear possibility that a particularly skilled paedophile could, in one communication, arrange a meeting with a vulnerable child. Because of all this evidence, the offence of grooming a child in Scotland is just one communication. I urge the Minister to follow that lead and adopt the same policy.
	On new clause 3, there is at present considerable disparity between the maximum ages at which children can be considered to have been abducted, depending on whether they are in the care system or not. This was outlined well by the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire. New clause 3 would amend the Child Abduction Act 1984 to make it consistent for all children. Currently, the Children Act 1989 makes it an offence to
	remove a looked-after child from care without authority if they are under the age of 18. The Child Abduction Act 1984, however, which applies to children not in the care system, applies only to children under the age of 16. I went over the details of this issue in the Bill Committee and I am mindful of Madam Deputy Speaker’s warning.
	In Committee, the Minister raised the case of a parent who objected to their 16-year-old running off to Gretna Green to be married and used the abduction notice to stop them. I understand his argument, but I believe that police would approach this pragmatically and make the right decision. New clause 3 would be extremely helpful in a case brought to me by a constituent. Her 16-year-old daughter keeps going out to meet her much older boyfriend. The mother is extremely concerned that the daughter is being groomed, but the police do not have enough evidence to act. As the daughter lives at home, the police cannot use an abduction warning notice on the boyfriend, which could be an effective deterrent. As she said:
	“What am I meant to do? I tried locking her in her bedroom but she just climbed out of the window. Am I meant to chain her to her bed?”
	If the Minister accepts new clause 3, all children under 18 will receive the same protection. My constituent’s daughter would not have to be demonstrably groomed or abused before the police could act. I urge the Minister to consider my new clauses.

Julian Huppert: It is a huge pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). It has been a pleasure to work with her on amendments in Committee and on Report. I pay tribute to her work and to the style with which she has tried to ensure that change happens. Her approach has been to try to solve the problem, rather than to have a political debate that would create heat but not fix anything. I hope she gets the result she deserves from the Government.
	I will not say a huge amount on the detail, as the hon. Lady has covered the issues very adequately. When we discussed new clause 2 in Committee, the Minister said:
	“it is sensible for me to go away and reflect on what she has said, and to work out what we can sensibly do next.”––[Official Report, Criminal Justice and Courts Public Bill Committee, 27 March 2014; c. 498.]
	I hope he will be able to enlighten us on what he has sensibly done next. I notice it is not yet in the form of an amendment that we brought to this House. I hope an amendment is about to be brought, even if it has to, disappointingly, go to another place. I think the change can be made. I accept totally that the exact wording might not be precisely right—it is always hard to write these things perfectly—but the intent of new clause 2 is clear. The Minister was supportive earlier. I hope he will be again.
	On new clause 3, I think the wording is slightly further away from what can be achieved. There are genuine issues—if a 17-year-old can get married, it does seem a little strange. I understand why the hon. Lady was not able to capture every single aspect of this. Having tried bits of legislation, I know how hard it can be. I hope the Minister is able to be supportive, so that we can close some of the gaps without going too far and creating problems that we do not intend to cause. I hope
	we can have helpful comments. I also pay tribute to Barnardo’s, which has done a huge amount of work on this issue.
	I am aware of the constraints on time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will not go through every single clause, even though I have strong opinions on some of them. The shadow Minister talked about assaults on members of the armed forces. He is absolutely right to say that we should take great care. People who serve in the armed forces do a huge number of things for our country and they deserve protection. They should not be treated in the ways he outlined. Some of the cases are absolutely abhorrent, but I am not persuaded that his exact proposal is the best way to tackle them. I hope he will seek to find a sensible way forward and not play party politics. He has avoided doing so in other areas. We want people to be treated properly and with respect, but I do not think it is right to single out the armed forces from other organisations. There are powers already—I hope the Minister can clarify this—for this to be taken as an aggravating offence. It is already possible to do what he seeks to do, so I do not think his amendment will move us forward.
	Turning to the huge bundle of amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I am happy to take credit from him for campaigning for what actually works. I know he is less bothered about that than some of us are, but I want an approach on prisons that helps people and reduces the number of offences committed. That has to be the aim. This is not just about punishment, but about not creating future problems. There is a huge amount of research on what reduces reoffending. Open prisons result in lower reoffending rates, and that is important. He would like to talk about the victims of the original offences, and I have sympathy with that approach, but I would also like to look at the victims of offences that we want to try to prevent from ever happening. That is incredibly important, and it is why I and others are so keen on evidence-informed policy making—that we should find out what happens and listen to experts rather than deal with a gut reaction.
	The hon. Member for Shipley and I have a very different approach and, as I said in my intervention, I hope he will press his proposals to a vote, so that he can see what the House thinks of them. I do not think he will get very substantial support from those of us who care about the crimes we want to try to avoid. The best way of dealing with the problem is to make sure that we do not have crimes—whether it be by preventing them from happening in the first place, which could be done through design, by the way society behaves and by reducing the opportunities for crime; or by ensuring that once people have offended, there is less chance of them reoffending later. Those must be the focus of our efforts.
	The hon. Member for Shipley made a number of comments, some of which are worth picking up. One group of people who work with prisoners and who are probably the experts on how to interact with them are the prison governors and, in particular, the Prison Governors Association. I presume that the hon. Gentleman has seen some of its comments about him. The PGA does not usually wade into these party political debates, but it is said to be “appalled” by the comments made by the hon. Gentleman, following a recent abscond. It goes on to talk about the details of the use of open conditions
	as an important factor for effective resettlement. It is particularly worth the House taking note that the PGA says:
	“It is therefore unhelpful for Members of Parliament to make comment on areas in which they are not fully conversant.”
	That is a rather polite description from the Prison Governors Association. We want to see things that work.
	To my mind, it is a great shame that we have so many people in prison in this country. There are now about 85,000 prisoners, which costs around £40,000 per prisoner a year. Whenever we talk about putting somebody in prison, one thing that needs to be thought about is whether something better could be done with the £40,000 that it costs for each year they are in prison. There is a place for prison—absolutely. Yes, some people should be in prison and some for a very long time. Earlier, I argued for longer sentences in some cases. Do we think, however, that that is a good use of money? Do we think it right that this country has roughly twice as many people in prison per 100,000 of the population as in Germany? When people travel to Germany, I do not think they see that a huge amount of crime has resulted from that policy. People generally report Germany as being a safe place to be in, so why do we spend about twice as much locking up twice as many people?
	The Government are making progress in specific areas, substantially reducing the number of young people and of women in prison. I welcome that, although I think more could be done to reduce the total number of people in prison by reducing the number of crimes further and by ensuring that those who have committed crimes do not reoffend and do not go back into the cycle of crime. Work is being done on that, but I hope that we can make further progress and I hope that we will firmly reject the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Shipley. I hope that he will have the courage to put his proposals to a vote.

Diana Johnson: I add my tribute to that of others for the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion). She has been a Member only a short time, but she has made a huge impact. I very much hope that the Minister will have listened carefully to her contribution today.
	I shall speak to my amendment 20, and I believe that there is genuine cross-party support for the House to take action against extreme forms of pornography. It is worth remembering the work done by Liz Longhurst after the death of her daughter Jane, who was murdered by a man obsessed with pornography involving asphyxiation. Out of that context came the Labour Government’s legislation of 2008, which made it a criminal offence to possess certain forms of pornography—depicting necrophilia and bestiality, for example. We know, however, that there is more to do, especially with online developments.
	The Government’s proposal is to ban the possession of pornography deemed to be
	“grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character”
	or containing realistic depiction of
	“rape and assault by penetration”.
	Both elements of the test are complex and open to wide interpretation. I tabled amendment 20 because I thought we could do better than that, and I hope that the Minister will agree with what I am about to say.
	The amendment leaves in place the first part of the provision because we accept and acknowledge that the standard for criminalising possession has to be very high. However, it would simplify the second part of the test by replacing the Government’s description of rape with the definition used by the British Board of Film Classification—namely, content depicting
	“sexual activity which involves real or apparent lack of consent or any form of…restraint which prevents participants from indicating a withdrawal of consent.”
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, this simplifies the law in two respects. First, in respect of “realistic rape”, we know that the depiction of actual rapes is very rare, particularly on the internet, although we know that some “honour rapes” in the middle east can be found on the net. The portrayals currently on the internet tend to be very unrealistic and have high production values, so it is quite obvious that they are staged, but they are none the less very disturbing and concerning.
	I would like to thank David Austin who works at the BBFC for showing me and other MPs an example of something that they are currently able to stop being distributed under their own classification guidelines, but that would fall foul of how this clause is drafted. What he showed us was an armed man who breaks into a residential home with two women in the house, who are then subjected to serious violence and sexual assault. It is quite clear that this is being staged, but it is incredibly violent and upsetting—and it would fall foul of the Minister’s definition.
	The second reason for amending the clause is to ensure that content is banned if it shows sexual assault, including rape, but not limited to rape, including where the acts of penetration are not actually seen. As drafted, the clause will ban content only if it showed the act of penetration. This could mean videos of sexual assault or real rape avoiding censure if the camera positioning does not show the penetration. The BBFC showed me an example in a film that went on for several minutes of women who were gagged, tied up and were whimpering. These women were clearly in distress. It was upsetting to watch as the women being gagged, tied up and whimpering were in a dreadful state. As I say, the BBFC told me that they would currently be able to stop that being distributed, but not under this clause. It would fall foul of the provision because there were no acts of penetration.
	I hope that the Minister will think again about this issue. Many Members would view it as a reasonable step to allow what now happens with the BBFC’s offline classification to be transferred to how we treat the same things online. That would also sit well with what the Prime Minister said he was going to do when he wanted to have the same criteria for online and offline images. Let us see that happen by the Government’s acceptance of amendment 20.

Jeremy Wright: This has been a full debate, and I would like to respond to as much of it as I can, while still leaving my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) with a couple of minutes at the end if I possibly can—I know how he loves to have the last word.
	Let me start with my hon. Friend’s new clause 29, which seeks to place statutory restrictions on certain categories of offender to prevent them being suitable for fixed- term recalls. I can assure him that it is already
	the case that no offender who is assessed as a risk to the public—assessed as being able to cause serious harm—can be given a fixed-term recall. Those serving a public protection sentence—the “extended sentence prisoners” referred to in the clause—are already excluded, so it is not necessary to amend the legislation in that respect.
	In addition, as my hon. Friend knows, we are taking measures in clause 7 to introduce a new test for release following recall, which will mean that prolific offenders or those who are persistently non-compliant with their licence could also be deemed unsuitable for a fixed-term recall. I share my hon. Friend’s concern and, indeed, that expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), about those who cock a snook at the legal system by persistently failing to comply with their licence. In clause 7, we seek to do something about that.
	We already have measures, either in place or pending, to prevent high-risk and prolific offenders from being subject to fixed-term recalls in cases in which it would not be appropriate for them to be automatically released after 28 days. The proposals in the new clause are either unnecessary—because they are already provided for elsewhere—or would go too far in placing a blanket statutory ban on certain categories of offender. We believe that decisions about the type of recall that is appropriate should be decided on a case-by-case basis, and I therefore invite my hon. Friend to withdraw his new clause.
	New clause 31 would abolish section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which, as my hon. Friend explained, provides that when a defendant on bail is subject to an electronically monitored curfew, half the period spent on “tagged bail” may be credited as time served towards his sentence. Incidentally, my hon. Friend said that the same applied to time spent on remand, but in that instance the entire period may be credited, rather than half of it.
	We want to ensure that only defendants who need to be detained are remanded in custody while awaiting trial. Tagging on bail helps to ensure that bail periods are completed successfully, and that remand prison places are taken up only by those who really need to be there. Tagging defendants and requiring them to comply with a curfew of at least nine hours each day is a useful tool that we want to continue to use. We consider that when people have had to comply with a daily curfew which restricts their liberty, that time should be taken into account.

Philip Davies: Can the Minister explain why he voted against that proposal when the last Labour Government introduced it?

Jeremy Wright: That was six years ago. Since then, the criminal justice system has become used to using the provision. Also since then, we have had the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I do not know how my hon. Friend voted on that, but I voted in favour of it.

Philip Davies: I voted against it.

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend surprises me. As he knows, the courts had been using the provision for some time, and we thought it important to regularise it by means of the Act.
	My hon. Friend also referred to what he described as dishonesty in sentencing. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary and I have considerable sympathy with the move towards ensuring that automatic release is minimised. He knows that our ambitions extend well beyond what we have managed to achieve so far, but I trust he will be encouraged by the fact that we have already reduced the application of automatic early release. We have removed it from those serving extended determinate sentences, and the Bill will remove it from child rapists and terrorists.
	New clauses 37 to 42 deal with the use of open prisons and release on temporary licence. My hon. Friend mentioned the case of Michael Wheatley. It is an extremely concerning case, and, as my hon. Friend and other Members would expect, we are looking very carefully at what occurred. When we have completed our investigations, we will consider what further action needs to be taken.
	New clauses 39 and 41 seek to prevent offenders serving sentences for murder or for an indictable-only offence from being moved to a category D or open prison. Open prisons provide an opportunity to assess prisoners in conditions more similar to those that they will face in the community, which is vital in protecting the public. To release life-sentence prisoners directly from closed prisons without the resettlement benefits of the open estate might, in certain cases, lead to higher levels of post-release reoffending, and thereby create more victims. That is something that both my hon. Friend and I would wish to avoid.
	A period in open conditions for the purposes of ongoing risk assessment and support for resettlement can be particularly important for lifers—a category that includes all murderers—many of whom will have spent many years in prison, and will therefore often not be prepared for release. While those serving sentences for indictable-only offences include some of the most serious offenders, some of those who have been convicted of common-law indictable-only offences will not be dangerous. An example is those who have been convicted of cheating the Revenue—the sort of people, one might think, whom my hon. Friend might expect to find in open prisons. I suggest to him that what he proposes in new clause 41 is not a useful means of determining in which category of prison an offender should be held. That must be determined on the basis of the risk posed by the individual.

Julian Huppert: One of the challenges faced by many ex-offenders is finding employment. We know that employment substantially reduces their risk of reoffending. What evidence has the Minister of the way in which open prisons help people to become used to proper employment when they leave?

Jeremy Wright: My hon. Friend is right, but it is important to note that in every case a proper risk assessment must be made to ensure that only the right people find themselves in open prisons.
	Currently, in most cases, the decision whether to move a prisoner to open conditions is made after advice has been sought from the Parole Board. The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) referred to
	the burden on the board that the Bill will create. We must indeed ensure that the board has the necessary resources, and we will do that. Public protection is the priority, as all Members would expect it to be, and the Parole Board takes account of a range of factors when assessing whether the risk posed by an offender has been reduced enough for that offender to be managed in open conditions, or on licence in the community. Those factors might include the completion of offence-related courses, a sustained period of good custodial behaviour, access to appropriate and stable accommodation, access to education, training and employment—as was suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) —and support from professionals, as well as from family and friends. Offenders are returned to closed conditions if their behaviour in open conditions, or updated risk assessments completed in open conditions, indicates an unacceptable risk to the public.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was also rightly concerned about absconding. Prisons can and do take a variety of actions to try to reduce its incidence. Open prisons operate intelligence systems with the aim of spotting those who might be planning to abscond. Prisoners are screened, and those who are at significant risk of absconding are sent back to closed conditions. Absconders can be criminally charged, and prisons, police and the Crown Prosecution Service are increasingly working together to secure their successful prosecution, which can act as a deterrent to others—as can the increased penalties for which the Bill provides.
	New clause 42 seeks to ensure that no prisoner serving a life sentence can be moved to a category D prison before the views of the victim or the victim’s family have been sought and considered. Here I hope that I can offer my hon. Friend some reassurance. We have recently taken steps to enhance the rights to which victims are entitled under the statutory probation victim contact scheme, which covers all victims of serious sexual and violent offences when the offender has received a prison sentence of 12 months or more. Under the scheme, victims already have the right to submit a victim personal statement to the Parole Board when the board is considering whether to direct the release or a move to open conditions of a life sentence prisoner. That allows victims to explain the impact that the offence has had on them, and what the impact of a move to open conditions, or release, would be. Victims have a right to make representations about release conditions attached to an offender's licence, and that includes temporary release from open prison. When there are any concerns about the vulnerability of the victim, the victim can feed into the licence conditions by, for instance, requesting an exclusion zone in the area where they live or work.
	New clauses 37 and 38 seek to prevent prisoners liable for deportation from being moved to an open prison or released on temporary licence. When a prisoner is being removed from the United Kingdom directly from prison, a move to open conditions or a temporary release will not serve its key resettlement purposes. That point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. However, in cases in which the prisoner, although liable to deportation, is not actually deported but is resettled here on release from the sentence, the positive benefits of open conditions and temporary release would, if the new clauses were passed, be lost.
	Our current policy seeks as far as possible to ensure that those who will be removed from the UK stay in closed conditions, and that those who will not can be considered for transfer to open conditions and temporary release. In such cases, as my hon. Friend would expect, particular care is taken to ensure that the risk assessment takes into account the potential of removal.
	When decisions are made about transfer to open conditions or temporary release, Home Office staff will be consulted so that any information relevant to the risk assessment process can be obtained. That includes the likelihood of removal action, history of failure to comply with immigration conditions, previous absconds, any history of deception with the aim of entering or remaining in the UK or evading removal, and any failure to comply with the directions of the Home Office. We are actively reviewing our policy to ensure that it can meet those aims, but we are satisfied that a statutory ban on the transfer to open conditions or temporary release for every prisoner liable to deportation would not be in the interests of reducing reoffending.
	My hon. Friend expressed concern about the use of temporary release. New clause 40 would prevent any prisoner serving a sentence for murder from being released on temporary licence. Temporary release contributes to public protection and reducing reoffending by helping those who are due to be released to prepare for life outside prison. For prisoners serving an indeterminate sentence, it also provides evidence for the Parole Board of how an offender complies when in the community. Making this change would lead to offenders who had rightly been away from ordinary society for years being suddenly removed from a strictly regulated regime where most decisions are made for them into the community where they will make most decisions for themselves. Temporary release allows this transition to take place gradually, using short releases, over many months, for the impact of each temporary release to be assessed over this time, and for the risk management plan to be tailored accordingly, while the offender is still in custody.
	We have already acted to ensure that public protection is placed at the heart of the temporary release scheme. Changes were made to risk assessment requirements last year following three serious incidents involving temporary release, and on 10 March we announced a package of measures to further improve decision making, monitoring and enforcement of the thankfully rare temporary release failures. To reassure my hon. Friend, I should put this into context for him. There are about half a million releases on temporary licence every year: roughly 0.1% of them result in a failure of any kind and a much smaller proportion of that small proportion involve the suspicion of further offences. None the less, we take all those failures very seriously and we intend to do something about them.
	Specifically, from the autumn we will have a new scheme of restricted release on temporary licence for serious offenders. In those cases, there will be more stringent risk assessment procedures, with greater involvement of psychology and probation professionals and more restrictive licence conditions involving probation professionals. As soon as suitable equipment is available, we will be able to tag offenders on temporary release, and we intend to do so. Improving risk assessment and management in individual cases is the right response to concerns about temporary release; a blanket ban on all
	offenders serving a sentence for murder would be counter-productive. As other Members have said in this debate, this is about a balance of risks. For all those who are released from custody—the vast majority of those serving sentences—it is important to reduce the risk of reoffending as much as we can, and many of the things we have talked about in this debate help to do that.

Philip Davies: I am grateful to the Minister for the work he has done in trying to toughen up on some of these issues and on the rights of the victim. On that basis, I am inclined not to press new clauses 29 and 42 to a Division as I understand that some progress is being made. However, on new clause 38 about people liable for deportation being eligible for a resettlement licence, this should not even be negotiable or needed, and on the basis of the Minister’s answer on that, which I have to say was wholly inadequate, I intend to press new clause 38 to a Division, as there is no excuse for allowing those people out of prison at all.

Jeremy Wright: I am naturally disappointed to hear that, but let me have one more go. The point I am making in relation to new clause 38 is that there is a distinction between those who are liable for deportation and those who are actually going to be deported. For those who are going to be deported, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that there is no justification whatever for release on temporary licence or transfer to open conditions. For those who are not going to be deported or where there is a reasonable chance they will not be, however, we have to think about the same balance of risks I described to him earlier. That is the logic for making the distinction I sought to make, and explains why I cannot accept the blanket way in which his new clause is phrased.
	Let me now deal with new clause 2. The hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) has again tabled her amendment to reform the “grooming” offence at section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As she said, the amendment would reduce the number of times the defendant needed to meet or communicate with the child in order to satisfy that element of the section 15 offence from two to just one. As she knows, I have much sympathy with this proposal, as I know many other Members do. I am grateful for the work she has carried out with Barnardo’s, and I join in the tributes that have already been paid to her not just for highlighting this particular issue, but for the part she has played in the wider fight to tackle the sexual abuse and trafficking of children.
	Our laws in this area are robust and strong. We can be proud that we are among the world leaders in the fight to protect children from sexual abuse. However, as the hon. Lady knows, I remain open to suggestions for improvement in this aspect of the criminal law, and in Committee I promised to look carefully at the issues this amendment raises. I do, however, believe it is vital that before we proceed with such a reform, we ensure that we have first considered all the issues and evidence fully. With that in mind, my officials recently met Barnardo’s to ascertain the full extent of the problem. Barnardo’s has now reported to my officials with some supportive evidence and we are expecting further material from them shortly.
	As well as examining this evidence, we are considering how such an amended offence would interact with the existing offences in the Sexual Offences Act 2003. We
	will then be in a better position to consider how this reform can be taken forward. I can assure the House that this Government remain committed to the protection of our children from sexual abuse, and we are looking seriously at the proposed amendment and will report our position as soon as possible.
	On new clause 3, as the hon. Lady knows, section 2 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 makes it an offence for someone other than a certain person such as parents or guardians to take or detain a child under the age of 16 so as to remove or keep him or her from a person’s lawful control. The point here is that the offence can be committed irrespective of the consent of the child concerned. I understand the hon. Lady’s intention is to bring the section 2 offence in the Child Abduction Act into line with the abduction offence in section 49 of the Children Act 1989. My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) made the same point and I understand it entirely, but, as I explained in Committee, such a change would lead to difficulties. Young people of 16 or 17 are lawfully able to be married, are generally deemed capable of living independently of their parents, and are otherwise able to make decisions affecting their way of life, not least in sexual matters. The amendment would make it a general offence with a maximum sentence of seven years’ imprisonment to take a person of that age who is capable of exercising his or her own free will in that regard away from his or her parents. I therefore hope the hon. Lady will understand that the position on new clause 3 is different from the position on new clause 2.
	I will now turn to new clause 15. As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central knows, we debated this amendment in Committee so I hope he will not be too surprised to find that not much has changed since then. He did make some additional points that I want to pick up on, however.
	I repeat that the Government are firmly committed to the protection of members of the armed forces, veterans and their families who, as the hon. Gentleman and others have said, make a valuable contribution to our society. They deserve the full protection of the law, but I am not convinced that his proposal is necessary to achieve that. His amendment would attach a statutory aggravating factor to assaults and other offences committed against members of the armed forces. I will not repeat everything I said in Committee about personal characteristics, and he has highlighted that that is a different matter. He added two further points to what he said in Committee, however. He mentioned the fact that special provision is made for police constables and prison officers. The reason for that is the nature of their work—we talked about that a littler earlier—and the likelihood that they will be assaulted in the course of their work. That does not apply to many other professions, including, I would suggest, the armed forces. He is right of course that someone’s profession, particularly if they are in the armed forces, can be a large part of their identity, and he has already highlighted the fact that there are sentencing guidelines in place, which the courts are required by law to follow, which make it clear that it should be considered an aggravating factor if the victim is serving the public.
	The hon. Gentleman also raised the question of what happens when someone is off duty. It is probably worth looking back to the case of Lee Rigby. This was a
	soldier who was not on duty at the time. The hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, have seen the sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge for the killers of Lee Rigby; it is clear from them that the fact that this was an off duty soldier was taken into account by the court. In the light of that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will see fit not to pursue his amendment.
	Amendment 20 would replace the Government’s proposed targeted extension to the extreme pornography offence with a much broader provision. It would capture any sexual activity that involved real or apparent lack of consent, or some form of restraint which prevented a person from indicating withdrawal of his or her consent—for example, a gag. I absolutely understand the good intent here of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson). I know what she is trying to achieve, but I have to say to her that this would be far too broad an extension to a tightly drawn and deliberately targeted offence. It will always be a matter of judgment as to whether we have gone far enough, and I quite understand that she will want to return to these arguments. However, I hope she will accept our argument—she may want to look again at the Hansard record of our proceedings in Committee, because I am about to run out of time—as to why the provision should be drafted this tightly. I therefore hope that, on that basis, she will not press the amendment to a vote, but I quite understand that she will want to return to the subject another day.

Philip Davies: It is has been a rather disappointing debate, as we might have predicted. Although I would have liked to have a vote on all my amendments, which are all worthy of a vote, in order to test the will of the House, on the basis of the Minister’s response I will withdraw new clause 29 and instead press new clause 38 to a vote.
	Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme order, this day).
	The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

New Clause 38
	 — 
	Resettlement licence: deportees

‘No prisoner serving a sentence for which he is liable for deportation can be eligible for resettlement licence.’.—(Philip Davies.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:—
	The House divided:
	Ayes 6, Noes 469.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 15
	 — 
	Aggravated offences against members of the armed forces

‘(1) Part 12 (Sentencing) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, is amended as follows.
	(2) At the end of section 146, insert—
	“147 Increase in sentences for aggravation related to membership of the Armed Forces
	(1) This section applies where the court is considering the seriousness of an offence committed in any of the circumstances mentioned in subsection (2).
	(2) Those circumstances are—
	(a) that, at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrated towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim being a former or serving member (or presumed former or serving member) of the armed forces or army reserve; and
	(b) that the offence is motivated (wholly or partly) by hostility towards persons who are former or serving members of the armed forces.
	(3) The court—
	(a) must treat the fact that the offence was committed in any of those circumstances as an aggravating factor; and
	(b) must state in open court that the offence was committed in such circumstances.
	(4) It is immaterial for the purposes of paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2) whether or not the offender’s hostility is also based, to any extent, on any other factor not mentioned in that paragraph.
	(5) In this section “armed forces” means Royal Navy, Army and Royal Air Force, both regular and reserve.’.—(Dan Jarvis.)
	Brought up.
	Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 195, Noes 277.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Mowat: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me some guidance. For the third time in recent weeks a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team has been to my constituency without informing me—today it was the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband); I have told his office that I was going to raise this. Is there anything you can do, notwithstanding his intellectual self-confidence, to help him observe the niceties of behaviour in this House?

Lindsay Hoyle: What I can say is that this is obviously not a matter for the Chair as such, but it is on the record. It is the convention for all Members to inform another Member of a visit, and I hope that that takes place in the future.

Clause 19
	 — 
	Secure colleges and other places for detention of young offenders etc

Dan Jarvis: I beg to move amendment 18, page 19, line 4, leave out clause 19.

Lindsay Hoyle: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
	Amendment 14,page19,line16, at end insert—
	‘(2A) A young woman may not be placed in a secure college established under subsection (1)(c).’.
	Amendment 15,page19,line16, at end insert—
	‘(2A) No person who is aged under 15 shall be detained in a secure college established under subsection (1)(c).’.
	Amendment 12,page20,line30, at end insert—
	‘(14) The Secretary of State must make arrangements to ensure there is adequate specialist provision to cater for the health and wellbeing needs of all young persons detained in a secure college.’.
	Amendment 13,page20,line30, at end insert—
	‘(14) The Secretary of State shall make arrangements to ensure that sufficient places are available in secure children’s homes to enable young persons, for whom detention in a secure children’s home is deemed more appropriate by the relevant authority than detention in a secure college or young offender institution, to be so detained.’.
	Amendment 16,page20,line37 leave out clause 20.
	Amendment 21,page71,line1 leave out schedule 3.
	Government amendments 5 and 6.
	Amendment 17,page76,line10, leave out schedule 4.
	Amendment 10,in schedule 4, page74,line17, at end insert—
	‘Staff
	4A (1) All staff employed as teachers, counsellors or nurses at a secure unit must hold qualifications as one of the following—
	(a) qualified teachers;
	(b) accredited member of the British Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists; and
	(c) registered nurse (children).’.
	Amendment 19,page76,line16, at end insert—
	‘(3) The Principal shall—
	(a) keep special educational provision in the secure college under review;
	(b) keep SEN and disability training of secure college workforce under review;
	(c) ensure persons detained who may have a special educational need are brought to the attention of their home local authority; and
	(d) carry out (a), (b) and (c) with advice from the secure college SEN co-ordinator.’.
	Amendment 11,page77,line20, leave out from ‘where’ until the end of line 21 and insert
	‘a young person poses an imminent threat of injury to himself or others, and only when all other means of control have been exhausted.’.
	Government amendments 3 and 4.

Dan Jarvis: Amendments 10 to 19, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), relate to the Government’s proposed introduction of secure colleges. Let me set out some context. It is welcome that youth crime has come down substantially since the late 1990s, but it has led to new challenges in our youth justice system that need to be addressed. Reoffending rates are too high, and the cohort of young people in custody is a lot smaller now compared with a decade ago. These young people have complex needs and present very different challenges. We need a youth custody regime that can effectively meet those challenges, and effectively punish, rehabilitate and bring down reoffending. The question is whether creating secure colleges is the most effective solution.
	More than a year has now passed since the Government consulted on these proposals, but in all that time, the key facts have remained the same. The Government have come to the House today with a set of proposals that they claim “will transform youth custody”, but there are no expert organisations expressing any enthusiasm for secure colleges. The Government claim that the colleges will put education at the heart of rehabilitation, but they cannot say how it will be delivered in practice. They claim the proposals will reduce the cost of youth
	custody, but it is not clear where the £85 million is coming from, and they have not produced any hard evidence to support this policy.
	When we debated these changes in Committee, we said that we would listen to what the Government had to say and work with them constructively to improve the legislation. We also said that if Ministers wanted our support, they would need to present proper supporting evidence to justify going ahead with this experiment and address the serious concerns being raised by experts in the justice sector. Alas, no such evidence or improvements to the Bill have been forthcoming, which is why we cannot support these proposals, and why we have tabled amendments 16 to 18 to delete the secure college proposal from the Bill.
	We all know the value of education, and how it can and should play an important role in rehabilitating young offenders. I am sure that everyone across the House agrees with that. The issue is that there are four areas where Ministers have plainly failed to make the case for secure colleges. Let me take each in turn. First, there has been a chronic lack of evidence to justify the creation of secure colleges. It is true that levels of educational attainment and purposeful activity are not good enough in many young offender institutions, and that education provision in the youth estate can and should be improved. We are agreed on that, but it seems the Justice Secretary is the only person who believes that the only way these problems can be solved is to plough tens of millions of pounds of public money into creating an entirely new type of institution.
	Members of the Bill Committee took evidence for two full days, yet not one witness had a single word of support to offer for the Government’s plans for secure colleges. The deputy children’s commissioner, Sue Berelowitz, said that
	“a 300-bed secure college will result in a large impersonal environment that does not adequately meet the emotional and mental health needs of children in custody.”
	Similar concerns have been echoed by experts across the sector, including the Prison Reform Trust, the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Even the Government’s own impact assessment states:
	“The Secure College model has never previously been tested.”
	It confirms that these plans are untried, untested and that the results would be unpredictable. There is no quantifiable evidence that the secure colleges would reduce reoffending rates. Such little detail has been provided that it is hard to see how the reduction will be achieved in practice. So what alternatives to secure colleges has the Minister’s Department considered? He will recall that I asked him in Committee what assessment his Department had made of how the £85 million budget for the secure college could be alternatively spent. For example, instead of building the secure college, that money could be invested in improving educational provision in the existing youth estate. I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether that option has been considered, and if not, why not.
	The second failure relates to education and welfare provision and goes to the heart of this debate. The Government’s objective is for secure colleges to transform the rehabilitation of young offenders through better education and training. That is a laudable ambition, but
	it needs to be placed in the context of the existing cohort of young people in custody. We know that the lives of the majority of those young people are characterised by multiple layers of complex disadvantages that include mental health issues, learning disabilities, self-harm issues, and problems with drugs, alcohol and family breakdown. That raises two fundamental points. First, those are not challenges that can be overcome through education alone—significant specialist health and welfare provision would also be required. Secondly, if secure colleges are to deliver educational outcomes over and above what has been achieved in the youth estate before, one of several things would need to happen: secure colleges would need to offer more hours of education and purposeful activity than existing institutions; they would need to have a higher calibre of teaching staff and a higher student-staff ratio; or they would need to offer some new model of transformative teaching that we have not seen before.
	Secure colleges would also need to overcome a particular challenge identified by the Justice Committee in its youth justice report last year. It pointed out that the average time spent in custody is only 79 days.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Justice Committee did look at those issues, and one of the problems is that a plethora of agencies, organisations and contractors deals with individual young people in custody. Often, too many people are involved, and a closer focus from one or two clear directions is needed on how individuals will make progress in custody, especially in education.

Dan Jarvis: I will come to that point shortly. The average time a young person spends in custody is only 79 days, meaning that most young offenders are not in custody long enough to improve their basic skills, but beyond a few vague commitments, no meaningful detail has been provided on how education or welfare will be delivered.
	The House does not need to take my word for that. The Secretary of State wrote to the Chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights a few weeks ago. Describing the secure college proposals, he said:
	“The Bill establishes the secure college in law. Beyond the legal framework, the legislation does not specify details of the regime to be delivered within the secure college.”
	So there we have it—there is no comprehensive plan in this Bill for how education or welfare will be provided. But we need to know how this will work. For instance, I have met one prospective bidder who has admitted that it would not be possible for it to deliver education and welfare itself and that it would need to bring in a range of other specialist providers. As my hon. Friend suggests, we could have a situation in which one provider operates the secure college, another delivers the teaching, and two or three others—or even more—deliver welfare services, all in the same institution. Will the Minister tell us what measures will be put in place to ensure that that does not lead to confusion and chaos on the ground? Where are the minimum standards in the Bill to ensure that corners are not cut when secure college contracts are put out for competition?
	We have therefore tabled amendment 12, which would place a specific obligation on the Secretary of State on health and well-being provision, and amendment 10,
	which would require secure college staff in teaching, nursing or counselling roles to hold relevant qualifications. On education in particular, the Opposition believe that teachers should be properly qualified. That should be the case for any classroom, and it should certainly be the case when staff are working with challenging children who have complex needs, such as those who are found in a secure environment, but Ministers have given no guarantees yet that this will be the case in secure colleges.
	That brings me to the third failure, which relates to the safeguarding of vulnerable young people who will be detained in the secure colleges. A number of concerns have been raised by groups across the sector, but Ministers have not been able to offer sufficient assurances on any of them. Let me run through three of them. First, there is the question of whether secure colleges should accommodate very young children or girls, which is highlighted by our amendments 14 and 15. These would prevent all girls and all 12 to 14-year-olds from being accommodated in secure colleges.
	Both groups are in the extreme minority within the youth estate. In 2012-13, 96% of children in custody were boys, meaning that girls were outnumbered by more than 19 to one. According to the latest figures, there are only about 50 teenagers under the age of 14 in youth custody, and the majority are in secure children’s homes. The Government have signalled, however, that they intend secure colleges to accommodate both boys and girls between the ages of 12 and 17. That would come with huge safety risks. Even the noble Lord McNally, until recently a Minister and now chair of the Youth Justice Board, has warned against this approach. He recently told the Justice Committee:
	“I would want to advise the Secretary of State to think very hard about whether young females should be there”—
	that is, in secure colleges. He went on to say:
	“Of course, co-education has its attractions, but I would not want the scheme to fail because of difficulties in trying to accommodate mixed groups”.
	There is a further point here. The Minister told us in Committee that this issue would be addressed by the very architecture of the secure college, with different groups accommodated in separate units. He could not provide any further detail, however, because he said that not all the design decisions had been taken. This is just months before shovels are scheduled to be in the ground and construction of the secure college is due to begin early in 2015.
	Secondly, the Government have thrown the future of secure children’s homes into doubt. Twenty-eight beds have already been cut and Ministers have signalled that many of the vulnerable young people currently accommodated in such homes will be moved into secure colleges. The kind of children for whom secure children’s homes cater would be all at sea in a 300-bed teenage Titan prison, and it goes against all the evidence showing that smaller establishments are by far the most effective for young people. It is easier to maintain control in such establishments, they are less violent, and staff are able to offer much greater hands-on support. They are also closer to home, enabling children to maintain links with their parents, which aids rehabilitation. That is why we have proposed amendment 13, which would require an adequate number of places in secure children’s homes to be maintained.
	Thirdly, there are the conditions regarding the use of restraint. Opposition Members fully accept that there will be the occasional need to use reasonable force in youth custody environments. The Minister will be well aware, however, of the chorus of concerns raised that the Bill could be interpreted as allowing the use of reasonable force for the maintenance of good order and discipline. If so, this may be unlawful in the light of a ruling by the Court of Appeal in 2008, which we debated at length in Committee.
	The Secretary of State’s letter to the Joint Committee on Human Rights said that there should be
	“limited and clearly defined circumstances”
	where reasonable force could be used to enforce good order and discipline, so I invite the Minister to lay out what these circumstances might be. I suspect he will say that this will all be worked out in the secure college rules, which have yet to be finalised. We keep coming back to this problem. A problem or area of concern is raised, and the Minister assures the House that it will be dealt with in the secure college rules. We then ask to see the secure college rules, but the Government have said they will not be available for scrutiny until after the Bill has become law.
	I am sure the Minister will understand that this is a far from acceptable state of affairs. That is why the Opposition have retabled amendment 11, which would revise the wording in schedule 4. This would make it much clearer, resolve the legality issue and put a lot of minds at rest, while still allowing reasonable force to be used.
	The fourth failure relates to costs. The initiative is clearly a cost-driven exercise. The Government’s impact assessment states:
	“We need to reduce the cost of youth custody”—
	one of the key reasons behind it—but only this Government and this Justice Secretary would propose to save public money by spending £85 million of it when there is currently no space for this in the Ministry of Justice’s budget. No new money has been made available for the pathfinder, so further cuts will have to be made to existing services to pay for it.
	Ministers also claim that the cost of a place in a secure college will be “significantly lower” than the current average cost of a place in youth custody of £100,000. At the same time, they also say that secure colleges will offer transformative education and training over and above what is being provided in existing institutions at a much higher cost. That sounds simply too good to be true, and it brings us to the final issue.
	The Government are essentially asking for a blank cheque to go ahead with secure colleges. It is a pattern we have seen throughout the Bill’s scrutiny. Where experts in the sector raise problems, the Minister says, “We’ll work those out in the pathfinder.” Where Members of the House expose a lack of detail and ask questions, the Government say, “We’ll come back to you on that after the pathfinder.” I must remind the Minister—as he well knows—that this is not a Bill for a pilot. The Bill will set out the secure college model in law, and allow it to become the preferred model for future youth custody, which is the Government’s stated ambition, but as they stand these proposals are half-baked, lacking in credibility, and severely lacking in supporting evidence. We need
	answers to these questions if Parliament is to have confidence that this is a good use of public money, especially at a time when the MOJ budget has been cut and youth offending teams and other services are being squeezed.
	I genuinely look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope he can address the concerns raised, but unless he is able to announce a radical change of direction, the Opposition will not be able to support these proposals and we will seek to divide the House on amendment 18 to strike secure colleges from the Bill.

Robert Buckland: I rise to speak to amendment 19, which is tabled in my name, relating to the issue of accountability for special educational needs in the proposed secure colleges. The amendment would make the principal of the college responsible, first for reviewing the SEN provision available in the college; secondly for identifying whether the work force are appropriately skilled to support young people with SEN; thirdly for working with that young person’s home local authority when they might benefit from a new education, health and care assessment, which was established by the welcome Children and Families Act 2014; and finally for undertaking those duties with advice from the secure college’s special educational needs co-ordinator.
	It is worth reminding the House once again why special educational needs in secure colleges is such a fundamental issue. Research suggests that 60% of children in custody have communication difficulties; a quarter of children in the youth justice system have a learning disability; three quarters have serious difficulties with literacy; and 17% of young offenders have a statement of SEN, compared with 3% of the general population. Those difficulties are often not identified until the young person enters custody. Ensuring that a young person’s SEN needs are recognised and supported is essential to the success of the Government’s stated aim in introducing secure colleges: to put education at the heart of youth custody. I fully support that aim.
	We had a short debate on these issues in Committee, and I listened carefully to the Minister’s response to the concerns raised about SEN provision. He said that he would expect potential education providers to demonstrate that they could provide the necessary support for detained young people with SEN, and I am sure that he would agree that training for staff in that discipline is crucial. However, I understand that the Government do not want to constrain innovation by putting into statute too many specifications on what providers must deliver and that the more detailed requirements on provision will be included in the contract.
	That is why my amendment does not specify the detailed SEN provision or training that must be provided; rather, it seeks to place duties on the principal to keep that provision and training under review. That has several advantages. It is a means of ensuring that contractual commitments relating to SEN are delivered on the ground. It creates a strong statutory framework around which the provision of SEN support and training can be provided, but it does so without being restrictive or prescriptive in the way the Minister was concerned about.
	One of the major challenges we face is linking up provision in custody and provision in the community. We do not want to see progress made by a young person
	while in a secure college to be lost after he of she is released, because for many detained young people—this is a sad reality, but it is true—custody might be the first time in many years that they have engaged in education. For far too many it is the first time their special educational needs are identified. It is therefore crucial that any information identified in a secure college is passed on to the home local authority so that there is continuity in ensuring that their needs are met. Upon release, those young people might be eligible for an education, health and care assessment from their home local authorities. That might need to begin before they are released so that a proper package can be put in place to prepare the ground for that transition. That is why my amendment would require the principal of a secure college to pass any information on a child’s special educational needs to their home local authority, building on the great strides that have been made in the 2014 Act.

Guy Opperman: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his eminently good speech, which, as always, draws upon his expert knowledge of SEN. Is he not describing an integrated form of education whereby what takes place inside one particular institution is transferred seamlessly to others institutions involved? Is that not what we should be aiming for in all education across the prison system?

Robert Buckland: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Already in the debate we have heard, in speeches and interventions, about the relatively short period of time that young people spend in custody. That continuity is absolutely essential if we are to take meaningful strides not only in dealing with rehabilitation, but in reducing reoffending rates, which concern all of us and are a priority for the Government.
	My amendment is a probing amendment, but I am keen for my hon. Friend the Minister to consider further these proposals in relation to SEN provision in secure colleges: that education providers in those colleges be required by contract to put SEN at the heart of their education provision; that those providers also be required by contract to ensure adequate and proper training for staff so that they can properly identify special education needs and meet that need when it is identified; and finally, that we give further thought to exactly who in a secure college should be responsible for working with home local education authorities when young people either have education, health and care plans, or might be eligible for them. I commend those points to the House.

John McDonnell: I will be very brief, because other Members wish to speak. I find this whole secure college proposal abhorrent. It flies in the face of all the evidence that has been put before the Justice Committee and debated in the wider media. What do we know about trying to address the issues that confront young people once they get involved in this system? We know that the most successful units are the smaller ones. So what is the response? It is to create a mass-scale prison.
	The other thing that we know works—this is absolutely critical—is for young people to be located close to their homes so that they can maintain family and community contact. The scale of this proposal in catering for about
	25% of young people in the prison system means that these colleges will be located in the centre of the country, nowhere near the vast proportion of homes where these young people live, so we will be breaking down family connections. We have warnings before us, right across the piece, that in a mixed-gender establishment those most at risk will be young women. Some of the statements and evidence provided about those risks were frightening.
	All the evidence tells us that a system such as that proposed will not work, and I think the Government know that. This is Oakwood for children, and we know what happened in that privatised prison—riots, assaults, and a lack of control. I think the Government know that there is a danger that that will be replicated in this large institution. That is why the Bill is allowing for the use of physical force against young people, contrary to everything the courts have told us.

Alan Beith: Given that the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Justice Committee, was unable in the circumstances to visit Oakwood when we did so recently, I hope he would not want to give the impression that the Committee had formed the view that his description fits Oakwood as it is now rather than as it was at the beginning.

John McDonnell: I was unable to go on that visit because I was in hospital at the time. However, I have had the reports from Oakwood and I have met the Prison Officers Association. We have seen time and again the level of assaults there and the riots that have taken place. Only recently, a whole wing was taken over by prisoners. That is a result of privatisation. That is the agenda; that is what this is about. It is not about the rehabilitation, education and care of young people; the main thrust is reducing the overall cost of the system. That is why privatisation has come on to the agenda. As a result of this Government’s drive to reduce costs within the system, we are putting the lives of young people at risk.
	I grew up on an estate where young people were sent into the prison system—that is, borstals. This proposal is bringing borstals back into the system. We thought we had got rid of them. They were like large-scale prisons where a regime of brutality could emerge because of packing so many young people in, and where costs were limited so there was not the intensive investment looking at children’s individual needs.
	This is a dreadful proposal. If it is enacted, with £85 million spent on this large-scale Titan prison for young people, we will live to regret it, because it will damage young people’s lives and, rather than rehabilitate them, force them into a more brutal form of criminal practice in future.

Stephen Gilbert: There is much to commend part 1 of the Bill, but, like other hon. Members, I cannot say the same for part 2.
	The plans for secure colleges are a leap into the unknown that have the potential to deliver worse outcomes for the very vulnerable young people who are placed into custody across the secure youth estate. It is not just me or other hon. Members who are saying that; it is the Howard League for Penal Reform, the Prison Reform
	Trust, the deputy Children’s Commissioner, and the Standing Committee for Youth Justice. Like them, I worry that the introduction of secure colleges could drive up the number of young people being sent into custody—something that we are seeking to avoid. I fear that they will not meet the emotional and mental health needs of children who are placed into them, that they will not meet the excellent standards of educational attainment in some of our secure children’s homes, and that they will provide for worse outcomes for some of the youngest, and therefore most vulnerable, people we need to detain.
	As the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, we are seeing a steady period of decline in youth imprisonment and youth crime, though one will not necessarily read about it in the newspapers. Overall, youth crime is down by 63% since 2002. Since 2009, there have been 55% fewer young people coming into the youth justice system and 36% fewer young people—that is, people under 18—in custody.
	The introduction of detention and training orders under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 resulted in a large spike in the number of under-18s being sent into custody, because courts saw that as a new solution. I fear that secure colleges could create a similar spike, with children being sent into custody rather than accessing the restorative and rehabilitative options that are available to meet their complex needs.
	It is clear, not least from what my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) has said, that the secure youth estate already faces considerable challenges taking account of the mental health needs, learning disabilities and difficulties, addictions, childhood abuse and neglect of the children in its care. We should not underestimate the background problems faced by those children who end up in custody.
	The Prison Reform Trust study of 6,000 children in custody revealed that at least three quarters of the sample had absent fathers; a third had absent mothers; half lived in a deprived household; more than a quarter had witnessed domestic violence; another quarter had experience of local authority care; and one in five was known to have harmed themselves, and a shocking one in 10 to have attempted to take their own life. It is clear that if we are to address reoffending among that cohort, we have to first address those underlying issues.
	My fear is that the proposed size of 300-plus for the colleges is simply too large to meet the complex needs and challenges presented by these children and to deliver the individual care and attention they need to resolve effectively their underlying issues and therefore reduce reoffending, which is what we all want.
	Evidence from the adult estate indicates that smaller prisons are more effective than larger ones. When the former chief inspector of prisons, Anne Owers, gave evidence to the Justice Committee’s inquiry into effective sentencing, she said that it is “very evident” that, on measures of safety, respect, purposeful activity and resettlement, smaller prisons are more effective.
	Smaller prisons are also safer. All 16 deaths of children in custody since 2000 have occurred in young offender institutions and secure training centres—the largest types of institutions in the secure estate for children. There have been no deaths in custody in secure children’s
	homes since 2000. Although overall the use of restraint techniques against children on the secure estate continues to increase, good practice in secure children’s homes has seen a significant decrease in the use of restraint, including a reduction of more than 90% in one example, thanks to the introduction of new management processes by a determined leadership. This Bill, however, makes explicit provision to move away from those approaches that reduce restraint and towards an approach that legitimises it. As we have heard, secure colleges are likely to be an expensive experiment at a time when youth justice budgets are already under pressure and being stretched across the board.
	Finally, I am particularly concerned about children under 15. Children aged between 12 and 14 are, as other Members have said, a small minority among the population of under-18s in custody. Indeed, as of 3 January, there were just 53 children aged under 14 in custody. I think we all recognise that there is a world of difference between most 13-year-olds and most 17-year-olds. It would, in my view, be wrong to place the two groups together in a large institution where safety, bullying and other issues cannot be effectively dealt with.
	I do not think we need to reinvent the wheel. There are already very good examples of good practice in secure children’s homes. We need to learn from those and roll them out across the secure estate for children. We all make mistakes—heaven knows that I know that as well as anybody—and when we do, we need to strike the right balance between rehabilitation and punishment. Surely that is especially the case for those very young people who end up on the wrong side of the law.

Kate Green: I share all the concerns about secure training centres that have been expressed this evening by Members of all parties. I want briefly to ask the Minister about the position of young women and girls in particular. Frankly, it is baffling that young women could be in the same secure training centre as young men when we have taken such steps to differentiate the needs of adult women in the custody system. It is also baffling that, when we have ruled out Titan prisons for adults, we think they are appropriate for young people. We seem to be going in an utterly perverse direction.
	We know that girls’ needs in the penal system are different from those of boys and young men. We know that girls are more likely to self-harm and to be placed in restraint and in segregation. We also know that their emotional and well-being needs are different. They have often been victims of terrible trauma and abuse prior to their entry into the penal system. Therefore, if girls and young women are to be placed in these centres, I want the Minister to address some specific issues with clear and direct responses.
	First, will the Minister tell us whether any young woman who might be pregnant or who might be a young mother will be placed in one of the secure training centres? In my view, it would be utterly unacceptable for such young women to be confined in the centres. Secondly, will any young women or girls who have themselves been a victim of sexual or domestic abuse or violence be placed in such institutions? Again, it would be utterly inappropriate to put such young women where they would see themselves close to the risk of bullying, aggression and potentially harm from young
	men. Thirdly, will dedicated staff working only with girls and young women be employed in the secure training centres, or will the whole staff team be shared across the centres, with no specialist and dedicated provision for girls and young women? Finally, what assessment, if any, has his Department made of the impact on reoffending rates among girls and young women of being placed in such institutions? I am not aware of any evidence that such a goal would in any way be effectively achieved, but perhaps he will share such evidence as he has.

Mike Kane: Ministers in the Government who abandoned the Building Schools for the Future programme are now effectively asking Parliament to write a blank cheque for the introduction of the secure college. During my first Public Bill Committee, I was mightily impressed by the contributions of Members and Front Benchers on both sides and by how they comported themselves. There was unanimity on many items in the Bill, but this was a particular area of division. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), I do not think that even Ministers believe in this proposal. Yet the Government’s objective is laudable. The Minister has said that 69% of young offenders go on to reoffend. We should all share the ambition to do better, because that figure is too high.
	I have many objections to the secure college. My first objection is to its size and cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) pointed out. With 320 beds and at a cost of £85 million, it can only be described—as it has been—as a Titan. The up-front cost for each place is more than £250,000, which is more than places in secure homes, secure training centres or young offenders institutions. What position will they find themselves in once this college has been built? How will it distort the market for our other provision up and down the nation?
	Liberty has stated that the proposal will work against the Government’s objective of reducing young offending. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) said so eloquently, the position of young female offenders within the provision is completely unclear at the moment. The Youth Justice Board has advised against any accommodation for girls in such a secure college.
	My second objection to the secure college is that the Government are not clear about its objectives. Is it supposed to be educational, or to have a custodial function? They have not worked that out. If the purpose is educational, my worry is how any educator in such an establishment can create the necessary relationships between themselves and those they educate. As a school teacher, I had 190 days—based on the old agrarian timetable—to teach a child, to build a relationship with them and their parents, and to pass that on through a sophisticated mechanism for the handover that involved reports and strategy. When he spoke so eloquently about SEN measures, the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) was exactly right to ask how such a process will happen. The average custodial sentence for a young person is less than 80 days, so how can an educator begin to establish such relationships in an educational environment that will bring the young person on? I do not think that there is any chance whatsoever of building such a relationship between educators and the young person. Young people with special educational needs also have complex social and emotional needs.
	In conclusion, I could not agree more that large institutions are wrong for children, and they are particularly damaging for the most vulnerable children. Without clear objectives, the leaders we hope to employ in any such institution will find it an almost impossible task to navigate the mission that the Government have failed to clarify in Committee and in the House tonight. The Government should think again.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief so that other colleagues can speak in this important debate. I was pleased that the Front-Bench spokesman gave way to me earlier because, having visited a number of young offenders institutions through my membership of the Justice Committee, I am alarmed by the background of many of the young people in those institutions. They are often the victims of abuse, neglect or simply an uncaring society and a lack of care throughout their lives. They often end up brutalised by the system, then come out and commit further offences. Life gets worse and worse for them.
	The endless answer appears to be a bigger and bigger plethora of agencies, contractors and others who are supposed to assist these young people who are going through serious traumas in their lives. One problem is that too many agencies, too many people and too many organisations are intervening, often on a profit-centred basis rather than a care-centred basis. The people who lose out are the young people. The rest of society also loses out because the skills and abilities of those young people are lost to us as they set off on a life of crime and further imprisonment.
	The Government now propose these very large secure training colleges. I am appalled by the whole idea. I agree with what has been said from the Opposition Front Bench and by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and others. We do not need big institutions, where people get lost, where self-harm takes place and suicides occur, and where bullying and harassment become a daily fact of life. That culture can become a form of control over those within the centres. We need something that is far more caring and far more focused on educational achievement and building social skills for the future.
	I will make one last point so that others can contribute to the debate. During the investigation into youth justice, a number of us on the Justice Committee had the good fortune to visit young offenders institutions in Denmark and Norway. That was very instructive. They spend a great deal more money than us on dealing with young offenders. They have much smaller units in which to deal with them. They focus heavily on education and social skill development, and heavily encourage family visits and, where possible, education in a normal college outside the institution. The person who goes through the process of rehabilitation while in custody maintains a high degree of contact with the rest of society, rather than being totally locked away and coming out after some years having lost lots of social skills, if not lots of contacts. The results in Denmark and Norway are very low levels of reoffending compared with what we have, much lower levels of self-harm and attempted suicide, and, in the long run, a much lower level of crime in society.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed to the obsession with the contract culture. That seems to be driving the Ministry of Justice at every turn. There are teams of people in the Ministry of Justice working out how to hive off, sell off, privatise and get rid of services, rather than focusing on the core function, which is the administration of a service and reducing the rate of reoffending—not creating profit centres for companies such as G4S and many others. Please can we not go down that road? I hope that the Minister understands that many of us feel passionately about this. We want to see young people being valued, not having their lives destroyed in these kinds of institutions.

Julie Hilling: Nobody except the Minister thinks that secure colleges are a good idea—no educationist, no one who works in young offenders institutions, no one who works in the criminal justice system and no one who campaigns for improvements in the way that we treat children and young people in the justice system.
	We do know that the vast majority of young people who end up in the criminal justice system have very poor literacy, numeracy and linguistic skills. The statistics show that 86% of offenders in young offenders institutions have been excluded from school. I maintain that the majority of those young people will have special educational needs because of physical or mental disabilities or emotional difficulties, whether or not those needs have been previously identified. Such children need to be educated in small groups and to do a wide range of activities. Simply sitting them at a desk and expecting them to learn does not work, and it has never worked for them.
	I used to be the governor of a secondary school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties, a number of whom were already in and out of the criminal justice system or at risk of being in it. There was a maximum of eight children per class, with a teacher and at least one or more teaching assistant. They tried never to have more than 40 children in the school at any one time, with the others undertaking practical work, outdoor education or other specialist activities. It was recognised that simply trying to push knowledge into them did not work, and that many of them learned better by doing.
	Why does the Minister think that trying to educate 320 young people together, often hundreds of miles away from home, will work? As others have said, the average length of time in custody is 79 days. Therefore, after 79 days those young people will be returned to their homes, and either return to their schools or have to find a new placement, facing the terrible difficulty of transition to a new school, and with the difficulty of having come from custody compounding their problems. The Minister expects them to be miles away from their families and other support services. How on earth will they have successful integration back to their home environment? How will they receive the support they need to ensure they stay out of custody?
	In many other places we have seen that success happens in small units where young people can be treated as individuals and educated on how they should be able to take their rightful place in the world. Please will the Minister look at other systems where young people are treated in custody, and please will he not go ahead with
	this bizarre notion of a secure college? It is not going to work; please do not carry out this experiment at the cost of our young people in the criminal justice system.

Jeremy Wright: I think that we had a constructive debate in Committee, and it is disappointing that the Opposition have set their face against secure colleges. I will not be able to pick up on all the points made during the debate, but let me do my best.
	Amendments 16, 17, 18 and 21 would effectively remove from the Bill all reference to a secure college, and it is worth starting with the context of our proposed reform of the youth secure estate. At present we pay around £100,000 a year on average for a place in youth custody, and yet almost 70% of young people go on to reoffend within 12 months of release. For secure children’s homes the cost rises beyond £200,000 a place, yet reoffending outcomes are little different.
	To give the House the facts, the proportion of offenders who reoffended in the 12 months to March 2012 is as follows: 69.9% in young offenders institutions; 70.1% in secure training centres; and 67.6% in secure children’s homes. That is why we need to do something different, and why we are pursuing the idea of secure colleges. I have heard the arguments tonight and, indeed previously, that there are better ways to improve the youth custodial estate, and in particular that smaller establishments such as secure children’s homes are more effective. The figures for reoffending that I have given do not demonstrate that, but I understand that plenty of good work is done across the estate.
	The hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) asked whether we considered spending the money on the existing estate, and the answer is yes. However, if we continue to do the same things in the same ways, we can expect the same results. He seems to have said this evening that he accepts that the status quo is not acceptable but he does not think that secure colleges are the right way to go. He clearly favours a much more small-unit approach, such as secure children’s homes, but I wonder whether he has considered the cost of that. Our rough guess is that putting all young people currently detained in custody into a secure children’s home would cost in excess of £100 million more a year than we currently spend. I would be interested to hear—as, I am sure, would the House—how exactly that would be paid for by the Labour party if that is its intent. I suspect it does not know.
	The truth is that no current model of youth custody is delivering the types of outcomes that we all want to see, or providing sufficient value for money for the taxpayer. That is why we want to consider secure colleges. I am conscious that there is an appetite to hear more detail on how secure colleges will operate than primary legislation can provide. It is therefore worth pointing out to the House that during the Bill’s passage we intend to publish and consult on our plans for secure college rules, including, where appropriate, setting out some indicative draft provisions. This will provide both Houses with more information on how we expect secure colleges to operate.

John McDonnell: During the passage of the Bill? We are on Report! This is the end of the Bill’s consideration in this House. We have one more day. We will not return to this issue unless the other place amends the proposed legislation.

Jeremy Wright: If the hon. Gentleman takes the time to look at the programme motion he will see that there are two days allowed on Report. This is the first day, not the second. [Interruption.] I have made the position clear.

John McDonnell: Will the Minister give way?

Jeremy Wright: No, I am afraid I will not. I have 10 minutes left and a good deal of ground to cover. There will be a second day on Report and the other House will get to consider this matter. The hon. Gentleman was not present in Committee. Had he—

John McDonnell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sure the Minister does not wish to mislead the House about the processes of this House. I would like absolute clarity. I am a Back-Bench Member dealing with this part of the Bill on day one, which is considering this part the Bill. On the basis of the programme motion, this part of the Bill will not come back for consideration on day two, so this is my last opportunity to consider the matter unless the other place amends the Bill on this point. I will not have the opportunity to take part in a debate informed by the publication of these rules. Is that accurate, Mr Speaker?

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has described the procedure accurately. What he has said is not something from which I wish to dissent. I cannot rule on it, but what he has said is procedurally correct.

Jeremy Wright: I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. First, if he looks carefully at the programme motion—I am sure he understands this very well—he will see that there will be a Third Reading debate at the end of the second day on Report. He will have the opportunity to raise something then. Secondly, it really would not matter what the secure college rules say, would it? The hon. Gentleman has made his position crystal clear. He thinks this is a capitalist conspiracy to privatise youth justice. He is not interested in the details of secure colleges at all; he is interested only in what he perceives to be the political animus here. If he will allow me to do so, I will come on to the detail that he says he wants to discuss. Let us discuss it.
	Amendments 13, 14 and 15 relate to secure children’s homes and the placement of under-15s and girls in secure colleges, an issue of perfectly legitimate concern that was raised in Committee. Let me set out the Government’s position. There was much debate in Committee, and again here on amendment 13, on secure children’s homes. We accept that secure colleges will not be appropriate for 10 and 11-year-olds remanded or sentenced to custody. We have also made it clear, in our response to the “Transforming Youth Justice” consultation, that there are likely to be some detained young people who will continue to require specialist separate accommodation on the grounds of their acute needs or vulnerability.
	The Bill provides for secure colleges. It does not seek to make any changes to the existing legislative provision relating to secure children’s homes. Local authorities, rather than the Secretary of State, provide secure children’s homes. We think it is right that they retain that responsibility. The nine new Youth Justice Board contracts and the
	increased use of welfare places demonstrate that there is currently high demand for secure children’s home provision. Quite properly, the Secretary of State and the YJB exercise their various powers to provide and commission secure accommodation for young people remanded or sentenced to custody in such a way that suitable accommodation is available for those young people. That includes commissioning places in secure children’s homes as appropriate. I have made it clear before that that will continue.
	There was also detailed discussion in Committee of whether girls and under-15s will be accommodated in secure colleges. Amendments 14 and 15 would prevent the placement of any young person under 15, and any girl, in secure colleges. Let me point out again that I recognise concerns that accommodating a large number of boys and only a small number of girls could, if the risks are not properly managed, place those girls at risk. That was very much the point made by the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green). I also recognise that girls in custody often have a range of complex needs and that it will be important that the secure colleges meet those needs. I am afraid that I do not have time to go into the detail she raised, but I will write to her if I can. The one question I can answer immediately relates to care for young mothers. There is currently a mother and baby unit at the Rainsbrook secure training centre. If that is not to continue, we must make provision elsewhere.
	My hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Stephen Gilbert) and others suggested that it might be daunting for children as young as 12 to be in the same secure establishments as 17-year-olds, although such age groups rub shoulders in mainstream secondary education and, indeed, in some of the other establishments that we have discussed. I am confident that those risks can be managed in secure colleges, and I want young girls and younger children to have access to the facilities and opportunities that will be provided in them. Having said that, I should make it clear that no final decisions have been made on who will be accommodated in the pathfinder secure college. Such decisions will be taken later in the development of the pathfinder, and in the light of careful analysis of the needs of the youth custodial population and the implications for the different groups who may be accommodated.
	Amendment 11 makes an important point about the use of force. I recognise that the issues of good order and discipline and how they are maintained are at the heart of the amendment. There was considerable debate about those issues in Committee. I sought to reassure Members then, and I am happy to try to do so again now.
	The duties of custody officers include maintaining good order and discipline, but the provisions in the Bill will not by themselves allow them to use force for that purpose. That will not be possible unless specific provision is made in the secure college rules, in which the boundaries on the use of force should be set out. I repeat that we intend to consult on our approach to secure college rules.
	I entirely understand that the term “good order and discipline” could be considered too broad in this context. Let me try to explain exactly what we have in mind. This
	is not about using force for the purpose of discipline as a form of punishment, or simply to make a young person follow an instruction. We have always made it clear that force must not be used merely to secure compliance with an order. We believe that, as a last resort, in the limited circumstances in which all attempts to resolve the situation without resorting to force have failed, and in which a young person’s behaviour is having an impact on his or her own safety and welfare or that of others, some force—subject to strict conditions and safeguards—may be necessary. Force may be used as part of securing good order and discipline only when there are clear risks to the maintaining of a safe and stable environment for young people, and when its use is a necessary and proportionate response in order to protect the welfare of the individual or that of others. I hope that that explanation is helpful. As I have said, further debate will doubtless take place when Members have seen the secure college rules.
	I am grateful to those who tabled amendments relating to health and education. I shall not have time to discuss them in detail, but Members may wish to read the Hansard report of the Committee stage, when we debated precisely these matters. NHS England will have a duty to assess the needs of young people in a secure college to determine which services should be provided. NHS England applies the Intercollegiate Healthcare Standards for Children and Young People in Secure Settings, which were developed by the royal medical colleges and published last year.
	The qualifications of teachers have been mentioned. It is, of course, important for properly qualified individuals to provide many services in secure colleges, but in some cases engaging and effective education may be delivered by individuals without a teaching qualification. I believe that the experience and aptitude of staff who work with this challenging cohort are more important than the qualifications that they may have. I should also remind Members that secure colleges will be inspected by Ofsted.
	A key point has been made about special educational needs. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) for the fact that I shall not have a chance to discuss it with him in detail, but it was raised in Committee, and I assure him that a great deal of further thought will be given to how those needs can be met.
	Amendments 5 and 6 are required as a consequence of the agreement in Committee to extend the secure college provisions of the Bill to Wales. We have liaised closely with the Welsh Government on our plans for secure colleges, and they have confirmed to us that they are content for the amendments to be made.
	Amendments 3 and 4 to clause 63 are technical amendments to correct the territorial extent of the provisions on contracting out. I hope they will cause the House no difficulty.
	The House divided:

Ayes 196, Noes 295.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
	Mr Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).

Schedule 3
	 — 
	Secure colleges etc: further amendments

Amendments made: 5, page73,line15, at end insert—
	16A In section 25(4A) (co-operation to improve well-being: Wales)—
	(a) for “Crown or” substitute “Crown,” and
	(b) after “director)” insert “or the principal of a secure college”.’.
	Amendment 6,page74,line33, at end insert—
	‘Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 (anaw 4)
	31 (1) The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 is amended as follows.
	(2) In section 134(8) (Safeguarding Children Boards and Safeguarding Adults Boards)—
	(a) for “Crown or” substitute “Crown,” and
	(b) after “director)” insert “or the principal of a secure college”.
	(3) In section 188(1) (interpretation of sections 185 to 187), in the definition of “youth detention accommodation”, after paragraph (b) insert—
	“(ba) a secure college;”.’.—(Jeremy Wright.)
	Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Claire Perry.)
	Bill to be further considered tomorrow

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Notices of Questions: northern ireland

Ordered,
	That, in respect of Questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for oral answer on Wednesday 11 June in the next Session of Parliament, paragraph (5)(a) of Standing Order No. 22 (Notices of Questions, Motions and Amendments) shall apply with the substitution of three days for four days. —(Claire Perry.)
	Question agreed to

public accounts

Ordered,
	That Nicky Morgan be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Andrea Leadsom be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

public administration

Ordered,
	That Alun Cairns and Robert Halfon be discharged from the Committee of Public Administration and Mrs Cheryl Gillan and Mr Adam Holloway be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

treasury

Ordered,
	That Andrea Leadsom be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Steve Baker be added.—(Geoffrey Clifton Brown, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.)

PETITIONS

Female genital mutilation

Simon Hart: I am pleased—

Mr Speaker: Order. Will Members leave the Chamber in a seemly manner? Ministers and Whips will not conduct noisy conversations with each other, because they will want to show the same respect to the hon. Gentleman as they would wish to be extended to them in comparable circumstances. I take that as a contrite smile from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes).

Simon Hart: I am pleased to be able to present this petition from the Tenby and district branch of Soroptimist International, urging the Government to do all that they can to stop female genital mutilation.
	The petition states:
	The Petition of residents of the UK,
	Declares that the Petitioners believe that not enough is being done to stop the illegal practice of female genital mutilation, and further that a Petition on this subject has received over 2,600 signatures.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to do more to stop female genital mutilation and to encourage other countries to stop this practice.
	And the Petitioners remain, etc.
	[P001349]

Local planning in Hampshire

James Arbuthnot: My constituents have the good fortune to live in a part of the country that is extremely attractive, so attractive that others want to live there, and that creates intense planning pressure. In the district of Hart, there is no up-to-date local plan for reasons my local residents consider to be unfair. As a result, I present this petition today on behalf of Michael Morris, Jonathan Glen, Brian Burchfield, Kenneth Crookes, Stephen Parker and 291 of my constituents. The petition states that
	the current planning system is preventing our District Council from properly controlling development in our area.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House strengthens the position of District Councils by enabling them to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity, while a local plan is being devised.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.
	Following is the full text of the petition:
	[The Humble Petition of Michael Morris, Jonathan Glen and Brian Burchfield on behalf of the residents of Hook and Rotherwick,
	Sheweth,
	That the current planning system is preventing our District Council from properly controlling development in our area.
	Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House strengthens the position of District Councils by enabling them to refuse planning permission on the grounds of prematurity, while a local plan is being devised.
	And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.]
	[P001350]

FLOODING (STAINES-UPON-THAMES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am delighted to have the opportunity to discuss on the Floor of the House the matter of flooding and the River Ash in Staines-upon-Thames. The incident, which took place this February, was a significant development that caused a great deal of discomfort and inconvenience to my constituents.
	I want to discuss why parts of Spelthorne were flooded during the winter and to examine why particular events happened in the way that they did. I also want to consider a question relating to the local statutory water undertaker, Thames Water. I must forcefully express that it is not my intention to apportion blame. I simply want to air the concern for the public record and to attempt to get more public scrutiny of a very important issue. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for making time to respond to the debate and I hope that he will help to elucidate the Government’s position about the situation and the regulation of our water companies more generally.
	The River Thames, as many people know, runs the entire length of my constituency and is fed by a number of tributaries that dissect the area. It is a great blessing and a matter of great pride, and it affords recreation and enjoyment, but unfortunately when flooding occurs it can be very inconvenient. Such inconvenience does not happen every year or even every five years. It is rare, but when it does happen it is particularly frustrating and often dangerous.
	The Thames burst its banks in places this year as water levels reached heights not seen since the great floods of 1947. Although record rainfall contributed to those events, as we all know, there are certain more specific questions about why some places were more affected by flooding than others. Residents express a variety of opinions about the nature of the flooding, but there are suspicions in particular about the maintenance of the infrastructure and whether the failure to close a particular sluice gate, for whatever reason—I am not blaming anyone—might have exacerbated the flooding of the River Ash over the weekend of 8 February through to Wednesday of the next week, when the sluice gate was shut.
	In order to try to get to the bottom of this, we need to look back at what happened in 2003, because, as people will appreciate, a protocol was established by the Environment Agency to prevent the River Ash from flooding; when there is a threat that water in the Thames Water aqueduct will overflow into it there has to be a plan, and a protocol has been put in place to deal with that eventuality. When the River Thames reaches a certain level, water backs up in the River Colne and then spills over into the Staines aqueduct at locations some distance from Staines. The water is then channelled by the aqueduct towards the town. If the aqueduct is full, water can spill over into the River Ash. The 2003 protocol says clearly that Thames Water—the regulated company—should pump water out of the aqueduct at the Crooked Billet pumping station when that threat exists and if that does not work, sluice gate 8 at Moor
	lane should be shut. That arrangement has been expressly put in place to prevent water from spilling over and putting between 50 and 500 homes at risk of flooding. The protocol was clear but in February, for whatever reason, it was not adhered to. As I understand it, Thames Water had legitimate concerns about shutting the sluice gate—so it says—and that should be investigated. I am keen to stress that I am not here to apportion any blame; I simply want to raise the matter so that the Minister can respond to legitimate concerns expressed to me by my constituents.
	On Saturday 8 February, the pumping of water out of the Staines aqueduct was operating at full capacity but that failed to stop water overflowing into the River Ash. The flood incident duty officer’s log, which was released as a result of a freedom of information request, shows clearly that the Environment Agency invoked the 2003 protocol at 6.25 pm that day. On Sunday 9 February, the Environment Agency repeatedly asked Thames Water to lower sluice gate 8 to prevent water from flowing from the Staines aqueduct into the River Ash. This information has all been obtained through an FOI request by residents who are rightly concerned and have come together to form an action group to find out more about what happened. That request on the Sunday to lower the sluice gate was not adhered to; Thames Water had its own reasons for not complying with it. After 5 pm on Sunday, residents in Leacroft in Staines noticed that their street was starting to flood, and Environment Agency telemetry data show that water levels rapidly rose after 11 pm that day.
	Early on Monday morning, at 1 am, the Environment Agency learned that sluice gate 8 was not operating. We are led to believe that a bit later—at 7.35 am—the Environment Agency raised the prospect of calling in the Army to shut the gate. At 10 pm, Surrey police informed residents in Greenlands road and Leacroft to evacuate their homes. The idea that in this day and age the police should be telling residents of Staines, a highly residential area, that they should evacuate their homes does not do us proud as a nation—people should not have to experience this. Clearly, by 10 pm on Monday, the situation was very serious. On Tuesday, Thames Water sent contractors with heavy equipment to the sluice gate, which, as I understand it, was not working. In the early hours of Wednesday, Thames Water finally closed the gate by 1 metre—it did not close it entirely. As soon as that happened, residents observed that water levels began to recede rapidly. On the morning of Thursday 13 February, the floodwater had disappeared.
	Over the course of four days, from Sunday through to Wednesday, the floodwaters had entered approximately 50 homes, and damaged hundreds more properties. At the time, workmen complained about the growth of vegetation on the machinery of the sluice gate. Residents are rightly infuriated by events, and it is their concern and anger that has led me to raise the matter in this public way on the Floor of the House. It is quite right that residents should feel aggrieved. They have been forced to leave their homes for six months to allow repair work to be done. It is difficult now, even three months afterwards, to work out where responsibility lies. Clearly, quite difficult and traumatic events took place, but the reasons for why they happened and how blame should be apportioned remain obscure, which is why it was incumbent on me to raise them as a matter of public concern.
	We understand that flooding is being deemed a natural event by the insurance companies, which are already putting up people’s home insurance premiums. A direct financial penalty is being put on people as a consequence of this flooding. The reasons why the sluice gate was not shut remain unclear. As I have said, I have no wish to apportion blame, but we must investigate the matter and understand why the sluice gate did not operate in the way that it should have done so that we can answer the question about whether or not the flooding was a natural event. If it could be found that there was some human error, or that something or someone prevented the sluice gate from being shut, then the flooding was not a natural act, but a human one.
	Other parts of my constituency were badly affected not just by water flooding but by sewage flooding, which is related to flooding infrastructure and the roles of the regulator, Ofwat, and the water supplier, Thames Water, and those are other issues that we need to look into. As I have said, I am not trying to apportion blame; I am just saying that this is something that we, as parliamentary representatives, should be seriously investigating.
	Areas of my constituency that were affected include Wheatsheaf lane, Garrick close and Laleham road in Staines, and Old Charlton road and Charlton road in Shepperton. Sewage flooding can happen for lots of reasons. It happens when the sewerage systems are very old or poorly maintained. As soon as we have any flooding, the water gets into the sewerage system and pumps are not able to remove foul water from people’s houses. There is no reason why people should have to put up with that in 2014. Our drainage and sewerage systems should be able to cope under immense strain and really adverse weather conditions. No one in this country should have to endure the difficulties and health risks that people in my constituency endured in the early months of this year.
	We have to look at the investment that Thames Water and other companies have put in to maintain the infrastructure. Our ability to hold these private bodies to account is at the centre of the issues that I am raising. People know that I believe—probably more passionately than any other Member—that privatisation can be a very good thing. The privatisation of the water companies was broadly successful, but even those of us who supported the privatisation of utility companies have to recognise the crucial role for regulation, because of the monopoly that such companies have—people have little choice about who supplies their water. I have always supported and argued passionately for free enterprise, but I have always believed that if we are to have regulated industries, they should be regulated properly. Ofwat and other such bodies should be given sufficient teeth to regulate and discipline those companies.
	I am sure that the nature of Ofwat’s relationship with the water companies will be the subject of many debates, but in September 2013 Thames Water submitted an application to Ofwat to hike its prices by 8% in 2014-15. That application was blocked in November last year because the regulator felt that the company had made substantial savings and should be able to use those savings for reinvestment. In the event, in a compromise, Thames Water put up its prices by 4.1%. The average household water bill was £357 in 2013-14. This year, 2014-15, it will be £370. That is the broader question about the regulation of monopoly industries that I wanted to raise briefly.
	I have my own view of what happened in Spelthorne earlier this year. I am firmly of the view that the impact of the floods—even though they were a natural event—was exacerbated by a degree of underinvestment in key infrastructure. I am open to evidence, advice and discussion, but I share my constituents’ opinion. The water companies have a duty to local residents and it is vital that they deliver a good service. Most importantly, it is vital that they earn the trust of their customers, and the only way to do that is to look more closely at the role of the regulators and perhaps give them more enforcement powers to regulate the industries that they have so far capably regulated.

Dan Rogerson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) on securing this debate. Sadly, it is an issue that we have had to discuss in relation to several areas, given the severity of the recent floods. I shall begin by setting some of these events in context and then turn to the more local impacts in his constituency.
	First, I should like to place on record once again my thanks to the many people who worked tirelessly in response to the recent flooding events, including the staff of the fire, ambulance, police and other rescue services, local authorities, the Environment Agency, the voluntary sector, and local communities who helped friends, neighbours and families in difficult circumstances.
	Unprecedented weather events caused the flooding that we witnessed across the UK. We experienced an extraordinary period of very unsettled weather from early December, with flooding on the east coast and around to Wales, and then many weather fronts coming in from the west and causing flooding across the country in various river systems and in groundwater. It was the wettest January since 1766 for England and Wales. Central and south-east England received over 250% of average rainfall. Met Office statistics suggest that for south England this was one of the most exceptional periods for winter rainfall in at least 248 years.
	In addition, tidal surges caused by low pressure, strong winds and high tides led to record sea levels along many parts of the east coast. High spring tides brought coastal flooding to parts of the south and west coasts. River, surface water and groundwater flooding occurred in many areas. Towards March, flooding was mostly confined to the Thames valley, Wiltshire and the Somerset levels, the latter in particular seeing unprecedented water levels, while groundwater levels remained high across many southern counties.
	Recent events impacted on the homes, businesses and farms of people across the country. Latest estimates suggest that over 7,000 properties have been flooded in England since the beginning of December 2013. This includes 2,316 properties since the most recent flood event began in early February. In addition, more than 48,000 hectares of farmland is thought to have been affected. There was significant damage to sea and flood defences and transport infrastructure in some areas. Urgent work is under way to repair the damage to rail links, with many lines back to full operation by 3 March. The House is aware that the extreme weather also affected power supplies to homes. It is estimated that power supplies to more than a million customers were
	restored over the course of the disruption. I am pleased to note that power supplies disrupted as a result of the high winds were also restored to all customers.
	The Environment Agency is aware that the river system in the Staines-upon-Thames area is complex and consists of various connected channels which drain into the Thames, as my hon. Friend set out. All these rivers, at some point, cross the Thames Water aqueduct. As levels on the River Thames were so high, these rivers were not able to discharge into it as they normally would, causing them to back up and spill into the aqueduct at various points. Following months of persistent rain, there were also high groundwater levels so water could not drain away. Initial reviews indicate that it was a combination of saturated ground, high rainfall and high levels on the River Thames causing its tributaries to back up that caused the flooding experienced in the Staines-upon-Thames area.
	The response was a magnificent effort. In the face of such unprecedented weather, countless people and organisations worked together round the clock to help those affected. The level of response, and the spirit of it, was staggering. I appreciate how hard everyone has worked and just how hard it is for those people whose homes and businesses have been affected. All levels of Government and the emergency services were fully engaged in dealing with the floods and extreme weather. The Government’s response was led by the Cobra emergencies committee. Through these meetings, we were able to ensure that all relevant agencies, organisations and local authorities were fully prepared and were doing everything possible to support households that had been affected. We ensured that local emergency plans and out-of-hours help were in place to give immediate assistance, wherever necessary.
	The Environment Agency was at the forefront of the local response. In Somerset, for example, this included one of the biggest pumping operations the country has ever seen. Military personnel from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, the Army and the Royal Air Force provided flood relief in affected parts of the UK. More than 5,000 personnel were committed to help with flood relief operations. Thousands more troops remained available if required. At a local level, tactical co-ordinating briefs took place for the local responders in areas at risk.
	My hon. Friend raised a number of issues in relation to the water infrastructure in his constituency. I pay tribute to him for the way that he set out his position, not seeking to apportion blame, but in the spirit of seeking to learn from what happened to ensure that similar events are not repeated if, heaven forbid, similar extreme weather events occur in the near future or in the medium term.
	As my hon. Friend pointed out, the residents’ relationship with the river is usually harmonious. It is part of the culture of the area and what makes it special, but when things change, impacts can be great and severe. He referred in particular to the operation of the sluice gate on the aqueduct. During discussions with those involved prior to the debate I sought to cover a range of options that I thought my hon. Friend might raise, such as the future safety of the area through the lower Thames flood relief scheme, which is being brought forward and developed, which I welcome. We touched briefly on the
	operation of the sluice gate. It is important to point out that the aqueduct operates as a mechanism for the supply of water into reservoirs, which then feed into the wider water system, so it is not meant to operate as a flood defence. However, it can be used to divert river water, and as my hon. Friend said, pumping enables that to happen, keeping water away from communities that are under threat.
	Clearly, the operation of the sluice is an important part of the response when river levels and the level of water in the aqueduct are high, so we need to look at what happened in this instance. If local lessons can be drawn from it, I am keen to hear more about that. Having heard my hon. Friend’s contentions and the concerns that he has raised on behalf of his constituents, I am happy to raise some of those specific points with the agencies involved. I know that my hon. Friend will be doing that locally, but I am happy to support him in seeking the answers that his constituents understandably want in response to their queries.
	My hon. Friend mentioned the issue of evacuation, and it is important to point out that it is a proposal of last resort. If people are at risk, people come first. We seek to protect property, but if people are at threat of injury, we need to remove them safely from the situation. That was repeated around the coast, for example, during the extreme weather conditions. Sometimes it is difficult to convince people that the threat is immediate, so it is a tough call for people to make locally, but it is important that we have that as a last resort. However, before that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is far preferable to ensure that the infrastructure is working as effectively as possible to make sure that that is unnecessary.
	My hon. Friend also referred to the situation with regard to sewage, and a number of other hon. Members have raised that in recent debates since the flooding events. Flood water contaminated with sewage is incredibly unpleasant. Systems should be in place to cope with the normal flow of sewage, and they are. We have a resilient system, but the sewerage system is not designed to cope with extreme events and large amounts of water. It would be possible, in theory, to design sewers that were able to cope with much higher volumes of water, but as my hon. Friend pointed out, a large cost would be attached to that. In all these matters we need a balanced approach between what is deliverable and what is achievable. Ultimately, the investment cost has to be funded through the privatised water industry, as my hon. Friend set out, where bill-payers foot the cost. With regard to problems of sewage contamination, as with the operation of the sluice gate, if there are specific local instances where infrastructure was not up to the task, we can learn from that, and I can raise those issues with the water company.
	We have recently seen the passage of the Water Bill, which has yet to receive Royal Assent, in which the Government set out their desire to see resilience at the heart of the industry—that is, resilience in terms of water supply, making sure that we have enough water to deliver the growth that we want, and resilience to climate change and to ensure that we have that great environmental quality in our water bodies around the country. Resilience could also be considered in terms of response to extreme events, so the regulator will now have to take that into account far more, as it has a primary duty of resilience.
	I thank my hon. Friend for raising these issues. I would be happy to take forward the points on the local circumstances that he raised, perhaps by correspondence, to make sure that he and his constituents get the answers that they seek.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.